Are background checks necessary?

[larryh1108]

Steal them, buy from the trunk of a car, etc. All checks do is inconvenience the law-abiding.

True, but by requiring a background check you remove a large source of guns and makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Will it stop them? No, but it makes it more difficult. It may even prevent some from getting one if they aren't "well connected". If you know you'll fail an NICS check, you won't go to an FFL to buy a gun, you'll look for one face-to-face and lie to the seller. That puts one too many guns in the hands of someone who should not have one. If we make it harder for even one person to get an illegal gun, maybe we'll have one less murder. Just one. Ask the family of the murder victim if it is worth it.

 

[M-Cameron]

True, but by requiring a background check you remove a large source of guns and makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Will it stop them? No, but it makes it more difficult. It may even prevent some from getting one if they aren't "well connected". If you know you'll fail an NICS check, you won't go to an FFL to buy a gun, you'll look for one face-to-face and lie to the seller. That puts one too many guns in the hands of someone who should not have one. If we make it harder for even one person to get an illegal gun, maybe we'll have one less murder. Just one. Ask the family of the murder victim if it is worth it.

that sounds eerily like the " if it saves just one life" argument we are all familiar with.....it sounds great, but there is no way to ever prove it one way or the other, its all hypothetical and a weak argument at that.


now i dont consider my self particularly "well connected" with the criminal underworld.......but i have no doubt that if i were so inclined, i could have an "illegal gun" in my hands in under a week with less than half a dozen phone calls.

or, like you said, just check the local For sale adds and lie face to face......i could have a gun in under a day. if you want to apply background checks to FTF sales, i can just get a buddy to buy the guns for me.....



quite frankly, your argument about making it just a little bit harder is somewhat moot as it isnt hard at all for them to buy guns.....its like trying to argue that shutting down one casino in vegas will make it just a little harder for people to gamble.

 

[1911 guy]

I'm really not trying to sound like a complete boor here, but explain to me, in detail, how background checks would eliminate a source of black market guns.

Just keep in mind that they are, by definition, black market and by extension, illegal.

You can do everything right and pass all the background checks you want. Volunteer for a few more if it makes you feel good. But what happens when your guns get stolen?

Or do you believe in the fictional "gunshow loophole"?

 

[larryh1108]

if you want to apply background checks to FTF sales, i can just get a buddy to buy the guns for me.....

would you straw purchase a gun for a buddy if he couldn't legally buy one?

 

[M-Cameron]

would you straw purchase a gun for a buddy if he couldn't legally buy one?

would I, a legal gun owner and law abiding citizen, buy a gun for a felon......no.

but if i was the type of person who willingly associated with felons looking to obtain a gun......probably.

or if i was ignorant of current firearms laws......i could see it.

youve got to remember, not every bad guy is a felon or has a criminal record......its not hard to find a 'clean' person who is willing to break the law....especially if you toss them some $$$.

 

[gc70]

We all know that background checks, no matter how perfect, will not stop prohibited persons from getting guns. In fact, the people who want more gun control are counting on that fact to be the basis for their "next step" - registration. Even registration would not stop prohibited persons from getting guns, but only point more readily towards someone to blame. And when registration did not achieve the impossible goal, there would be another "next step."

 

[klyph]

True, but by requiring a background check you remove a large source of guns and makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Will it stop them? No, but it makes it more difficult. It may even prevent some from getting one if they aren't "well connected". If you know you'll fail an NICS check, you won't go to an FFL to buy a gun, you'll look for one face-to-face and lie to the seller. That puts one too many guns in the hands of someone who should not have one. If we make it harder for even one person to get an illegal gun, maybe we'll have one less murder. Just one. Ask the family of the murder victim if it is worth it.

Actually, supposing you do prohibit or restrict private transfers, you immediately increase the profit for illegal vendors to fill the criminal demand, thus drastically increasing the financial capabilities of illegal firearm vendors. The only thing such legislation would be guaranteed to effect is to put more money in the pockets of these criminal trunk salesmen.
The argument of "if it just saves one life" is perhaps the height of ignorance. There are many legislative actions that are sure to "just save one life": ban airbags, ban cars that go above 50mph, ban all OTC medicine, ban firearms, etc. The problem is that you're usually trading several lives or the natural and civil rights of the entire population to save that one life. I'm sorry to sound calloused, but the thousands of lives that are saved every year by firearms are more valuable than the handful of kids that get killed. It's simple math. I'll gladly explain it to the families of murder victims if you think it's necessary.

 

[anchorman]

Using the honor system (if I'm reading you correctly) is just like any other law. Only the honorable will comply.

Except in this case it allows the honorable to know (with pretty good certainty) that they are not selling to dishonorable people.

 

[golfer_ray]

I see no problem with background checks. At least that will eliminate the obvious from getting a firearm easily.

 

[9MMare]

Easy. They go to the gun store, find out they are prohibited and cease any further attempts to purchase since they now know they are not allowed under the law.

The Newtown,CT shooter tried to buy a gun(s) legally and was turned down.

He went home and took his mother's.

Another might have just gone and stolen someone elses' (essentially what the CT shooter did).

Murder was not prevented.

 

[9MMare]

True, but by requiring a background check you remove a large source of guns and makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Will it stop them? No, but it makes it more difficult. It may even prevent some from getting one if they aren't "well connected". If you know you'll fail an NICS check, you won't go to an FFL to buy a gun, you'll look for one face-to-face and lie to the seller. That puts one too many guns in the hands of someone who should not have one. If we make it harder for even one person to get an illegal gun, maybe we'll have one less murder. Just one. Ask the family of the murder victim if it is worth it.

I dont mean to be rude or insensitive, but is that the price of freedom? One life?

Or, 3? Or, how many? I think it's a legitimate question.

Please see my signature for my opinion (2nd one).

 

[9MMare]

We all know that background checks, no matter how perfect, will not stop prohibited persons from getting guns. In fact, the people who want more gun control are counting on that fact to be the basis for their "next step" - registration. Even registration would not stop prohibited persons from getting guns, but only point more readily towards someone to blame. And when registration did not achieve the impossible goal, there would be another "next step."

Thank you. I have been posting something similar re: the school protection 'solutions' that the pro-gun side is considering.

 

[9MMare]

Except in this case it allows the honorable to know (with pretty good certainty) that they are not selling to dishonorable people.

Would the 'honorable' still be held responsible if the supposedly...at the time....honorable person buying the gun snaps in the future and commits a crime? Or that gun gets stolen and used in a crime? I wouldnt want to see liability attached to it....would that be avoidable?

I dont think there are any guarantees for any item you sell.

 

[gc70]

Except in this case it allows the honorable to know (with pretty good certainty) that they are not selling to dishonorable people.

You do not need a law for that; anyone who wants the reassurance of a background check can already voluntarily pay to do a transaction through an FFL.

 

[michaelbsc]

You do not need a law for that; anyone who wants the reassurance of a background check can already voluntarily pay to do a transaction through an FFL.

Thank you. A breath of fresh air.

 

[anchorman]

You do not need a law for that; anyone who wants the reassurance of a background check can already voluntarily pay to do a transaction through an FFL.

Depends on if they live anywhere near an FFL. I'm pretty sure this is a big reason why reason private sales have always been made legal, and why they will remain so: the possibility that a person might have to travel an undue distance in order to procure the services of an FFL.

 

[anchorman]

Would the 'honorable' still be held responsible if the supposedly...at the time....honorable person buying the gun snaps in the future and commits a crime? Or that gun gets stolen and used in a crime? I wouldnt want to see liability attached to it....would that be avoidable?

That would be the whole point. Trade universal background check for release of seller from liability, unless it could be proven that they otherwise had knowledge the buyer was cuckoo.

The NRA could make itself look really good if they would propose madatory (but reasonable) safe storage rules, along with mandatory (and free) access to NICS system for all transfers. The problem with all of this debate is that both sides see the other as insane/evil, and there is no trust. This makes it really hard for reasonable people to come up with reasonable, simple and just solutions, which could/would reduce harm to individuals and society in general without undue burden on individual liberties.

 

[gc70]

I suppose each person must decide whether they have a limit on the cost or convenience of being honorable.

Trade universal background check for release of seller from liability

That would entail agreeing to being subject to more than we are subject to now in exchange for not being subject to something we are not subject to now.

Somehow, that does not seem to fit in my understanding of compromise.

 

[9MMare]

That would be the whole point. Trade universal background check for release of seller from liability, unless it could be proven that they otherwise had knowledge the buyer was cuckoo.

The NRA could make itself look really good if they would propose madatory (but reasonable) safe storage rules, along with mandatory (and free) access to NICS system for all transfers. The problem with all of this debate is that both sides see the other as insane/evil, and there is no trust. This makes it really hard for reasonable people to come up with reasonable, simple and just solutions, which could/would reduce harm to individuals and society in general without undue burden on individual liberties.

I'm personally against 'safe storage' laws. I have a bit of a Darwinistic tendency there. I think it's an invasion of home and privacy rights, not to mention that if an outsider steals my property, period, THEY are the criminal, not me.

Is safe storage a necessity in homes with kids? I would think so. Is it common sense? I would think so. Should it be law? I dont know....do families have to lock up their matches? Are they imprisoned when their kids drown in the family pool?

I believe in personal responsibility...and the more we attempt to legislate it (and you cant actually FORCE it)....the more you actually undermine it.

(Yup...Democrat here.)

 

[anchorman]

I'm personally against 'safe storage' laws. I have a bit of a Darwinistic tendency there. I think it's an invasion of home and privacy rights, not to mention that if an outsider steals my property, period, THEY are the criminal, not me.

Is safe storage a necessity in homes with kids? I would think so. Is it common sense? I would think so. Should it be law? I dont know....do families have to lock up their matches? Are they imprisoned when their kids drown in the family pool?

I believe in personal responsibility...and the more we attempt to legislate it (and you cant actually FORCE it)....the more you actually undermine it.

(Yup...Democrat here.)

I'm mostly with you re: personal responsibility. it's not easy to answer, though. If one believes (as I do) that kids have rights as individuals and are not the property of their parents, it changes that perspective you offer to a certain extent. With any case, wether a gun or an accidental drowning, if there is negligence involved and someone is maimed or killed, that negligent party belongs in jail. And what if the kid shoots their friend, by accident, or on purpose? I'm not saying anyone should inspect people's homes for compliance under ordinary circumstances, but if there is an incident where a child is maimed or killed, or gets a gun and uses it on someone else, why not?

 

[9MMare]

I'm mostly with you re: personal responsibility. it's not easy to answer, though. If one believes (as I do) that kids have rights as individuals and are not the property of their parents, it changes that perspective you offer to a certain extent. With any case, wether a gun or an accidental drowning, if there is negligence involved and someone is maimed or killed, that negligent party belongs in jail. And what if the kid shoots their friend, by accident, or on purpose? I'm not saying anyone should inspect people's homes for compliance under ordinary circumstances, but if there is an incident where a child is maimed or killed, or gets a gun and uses it on someone else, why not?

Why? Why is a gun different than a car? If the kid gets hold of the car and kills someone...what is the penalty? Is the parent held criminally responsible? (They most likely can be civilly). If someone else's kid drowns in your pool, are you criminally responsible? Even if you have a fence, as most people do?

Minors do not have the 'full' rights of consenting adults. And I agree with this.

 

[anchorman]

That would entail agreeing to being subject to more than we are subject to now in exchange for not being subject to something we are not subject to now.

Somehow, that does not seem to fit in my understanding of compromise.

we can be stubborn and keep our heads in the sand, or we can appear to be (and perhaps actually be) proactive in this regard, offer up real, viable solutions to problems we have. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure if we don't try to offer some reasonable solutions to the problem of prohibited persons and minors acquiring guns, "solutions" will be forced upon us at some point. I'd rather sane people from the ranks of american gun owners are coming up with answers rather than get them from people who haven't a clue about guns, such as mike bloomberg and diane feinstein, and can buy all the personal safety that they want.

 

[anchorman]

Why? Why is a gun different than a car? If the kid gets hold of the car and kills someone...what is the penalty? Is the parent held criminally responsible? (They most likely can be civilly). If someone else's kid drowns in your pool, are you criminally responsible? Even if you have a fence, as most people do?

Minors do not have the 'full' rights of consenting adults. And I agree with this.

The idea that it is your fault if someone's kid crosses your fence and drowns in your pool that you are somehow responsible is close to the height of legal insanity, though I know it is a reality somehow.

I know minors do not have the full rights of adults, but there are a few things, such as the right to their life and bodily integrity that transcend any ability on their part to consent to anything or not. The checks that go on before one can adopt a child are pretty extreme, I think this speaks somewhat to how we as a society see that a child has a right to live in a moderately safe environment. Mandating that they don't have unsupervised access to guns doesn't seem that far out in that context.

 

[9MMare]

we can be stubborn and keep our heads in the sand, or we can appear to be (and perhaps actually be) proactive in this regard, offer up real, viable solutions to problems we have. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure if we don't try to offer some reasonable solutions to the problem of prohibited persons and minors acquiring guns, "solutions" will be forced upon us at some point. I'd rather sane people from the ranks of american gun owners are coming up with answers rather than get them from people who haven't a clue about guns, such as mike bloomberg and diane feinstein, and can buy all the personal safety that they want.

I completely understand that perspective (what I bolded). However I have been posting on what I perceive as the dangers in that:

We can make recommendations but the minute the NRA or gun rights activists *declare* that such and such will save lives and should be implemented, then we get blamed when they dont work.

Let school districts decide to allow CC in schools. That is already on their radars, as we've seen movement in that direction since the CT shooting. Let parents decide to invest in armed security. Encourage it, but dont proscribe it. Because if and when it fails, *WE* are blamed for the failure and focus comes back to guns.

We, as the gun activists, need to support solutions that focus on the shooters...not the tools.



Again, this is just my perspective.

 

[9MMare]

The idea that it is your fault if someone's kid crosses your fence and drowns in your pool that you are somehow responsible is close to the height of legal insanity, though I know it is a reality somehow.

I know minors do not have the full rights of adults, but there are a few things, such as the right to their life and bodily integrity that transcend any ability on their part to consent to anything or not. The checks that go on before one can adopt a child are pretty extreme, I think this speaks somewhat to how we as a society see that a child has a right to live in a moderately safe environment. Mandating that they don't have unsupervised access to guns doesn't seem that far out in that context.

Again, I really dont understand the specific demonizing of guns. THat there should be laws specific to guns but not...cars or pools or matches or knives or...? It is a parent's responsibility to keep their child safe period. And if they do not....is it a criminal offense? Or only a criminal offense when a gun is involved?