04-09-2013, 09:14 AM #11
It doesn't. I submit for a background check every time I buy a gun. After the first one, which can be a little slow, they go through pretty quickly.
My problem with the background check is that it A) Doesn't always get everybody because local and state law enforcement is sometimes lax getting info reported to the national database making it possible for someone to be charged with a domestic or violent crime in one state and go to another, get a new ID and buy a gun, and B) it doesn't include information on people who have been deemed mentally incompetent or are suffering from the myriad of mental disorders that lead to the shootings like we saw in Newtown.
04-09-2013, 10:35 AM #12
So you're saying it's not good enough.
04-09-2013, 10:37 AM #13
I am saying that it occasionally fails to stop guns from getting into the hands of people who should not have them. You can have background checks out the wazoo, until they have a database that encompasses all people who are a risk or danger to society then it accomplishes nothing.
More background checks are not the answer. A more efficient background check is.
04-09-2013, 10:39 AM #14
04-09-2013, 10:43 AM #15
I have no issue with background checks to purchase firearms, but I guess one could argue the points at which someone is refused a weapon after something is found in a background check. I get the laws like felons not being allowed to owe guns. Those are pretty clear cut, but what about if they want to say that anyone who has been arrested can not own a fire arm. I get that example is rather extreme, but the big thing is where the line is placed.
Another issue could be mental stability. A lot of discussion has been about mental health of a lot of the mass shooters. How does that come into play in a background check. Do they have the right to ask people to take tests concerning their mental wellbeing? If so what benchmarks make you ineligible to then own a firearm.
to me that's the main argument people could have when it comes to the scope of background checks.
04-09-2013, 10:54 AM #16
"How exactly would it be done?" is a question, not an argument.
04-09-2013, 11:05 AM #17
wickabee, good question.
I wonder how many mentally unstable people never go to the doctor to have any record to search for?Jay Shrewsbury
04-09-2013, 11:10 AM #18
I will go further to say that I don't think that every felon should not have the right to own a gun. Embezzlement is a felony. Insider trading is a felony. Shop lifting over a certain dollar amount is a felony. Receiving stolen property is a felony. Vandalizing a mailbox is a felony. I don't see where any of these warrant prevention of gun ownership.
I would not agree that people should have to take a test to prove mental stability, but if someone has been diagnosed as schizophrenic, diagnosed with a mood disorder such as clinical depression or bi-polar, diagnosed with certain personality disorders such as a paranoia disorder or Adjustment Disorder which can cause sudden violent reactions, then they should be entered into the database as someone who should not be able to purchase a gun. If their disorder means that their ownership of a gun would make them a danger to themselves or others, then their right to privacy is usurped by the right of the community to be safe.
04-09-2013, 11:13 AM #19
Duane, that only works if the state of mental health care, and health care overall, is massively overhauled.
It's easier to get a gun than help for mental illness. That shows problems in attitude towards fund AND mental health in the US. No background checks can do anything if no one can get diagnosed.
04-09-2013, 11:42 AM #20