Gun Background Checks Supported By More Than 90 Percent

[Stephanie B]

The other thing is that, a politicians know, the question is not what the polls say. If the majority of people say that they are for or against something, but they don't come out to support the candidates that take those positions, then their opinions are meaningless.

The key is the voters who say that they are for/against something and then support those politicians who are aligned with their views.

 

[10ring]

Need to check on the truth in polls. 90 percent of the people supporting anything in this country is very rare.

Yes and one dirty little secret of polling is that the answers can be manipulated not only by whom you poll but how you construct the question.

If we are in such dire need of new laws, how about laws requiring that whenever a poll is published they have to publish the sampling methodology and the exact form of the questions asked...

We'll never see that, will we?

 

[jimgansett]

My two favorite quotes. First regarding polls and statistics (oh, nobody polled me, ever): "People use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post - for support, not illumination." Remember the old cold war joke where a Russian and American had a race. The result was a win for the American. Being only two people in the race, the Russian government reported that the Russian came in 2nd and the American came in next to last. See how stats can be both truthful and also misleading?

Seconds quote over the rush to gun control: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal - well meaning but without understanding." -Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856 - 1941)

 

[Titan]

As with any poll I look at, I like to see the original question text, to determine EXACTLY what the repondents were replying to, rather than a characterization of what the aggregate responses means.

For example, it's not unusual for folks to be directed toward a given response, because the choice they would prefer to vote for, isn't offered.

 

[OSYM8113]

Honestly I don't mind background checks to buy firearms. I've had to deal with them all my life, all its ever been was a 5 minute phone call to the FBI and I'm good to go. Private citizens should be able to check online or call in a background check on whoever they want to sell to and be done with it. No FFL for private sales imo.

I do not think for one second just anyone should be able to walk into a store and walk out with whatever they want, no questions asked. Most of the people around here (MA) are bat-**** crazy, it would be anarchy over here if it were any easier- specifically gangs getting whatever they want (and yes, they would go to stores and buy them if they could. I've grown up in an area where I'm submerged around these morons my entire life, they are dumb enough to do it. The most common method of them acquiring guns in my area has been theft, from LEOs private residence or cars, from what I've encountered.)

I have no problem applying for a license/ permit that requires a certificate from a training class to get (not a fan of the $100 fee though) and would love to see all other gun owners have to do the same. I do not think it is a road to firearms registration, just a common sense precaution to keep the obviously deviant from doing worse things.

Registering guns, however, is a slippery slope. I do not agree with that one bit.


Not all "gun control" is out to rape you all of your firearms. MOST of it is, but not all.

 

[Harry58]

The current background check from an FFL is supposed to cover 1-convcted felon or 2-adjucated (ordered by th court) to a mental facility. I recently saw a news story where only 12 states submit data on mental adjucation. If this is accurate, there is bascically no check curently in place for the mental illness side of this equation. I don't know if the convicted felon data is complete or not. In any event, I think we should figure out how to enforce the current law before creating more regulations.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

As with any poll I look at, I like to see the original question text, to determine EXACTLY what the repondents were replying to, rather than a characterization of what the aggregate responses means.

For example, it's not unusual for folks to be directed toward a given response, because the choice they would prefer to vote for, isn't offered.

Here is the question asked in a Quinnipiac poll of PA voters.

17. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

95% support

---------

Fox News national poll.

34. Do you favor or oppose Each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence.

Requiring criminal background checks for all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales.

91% Favor

----------

I've seen a few polls on this issue, they all show similar overwhelming support. I find it very disappointing.

 

[Black_Sheep]

Gun Background Checks Supported By More Than 90 Percent: Poll

75% of statistics are made up...

 

[stumper]

BG checks are required at gun shows. Any dealer must conduct a FBI/NCIC at the show just as he does at his storefront. There is no "gun show loophole."

THANK YOU!!!!!!

 

[PA Guns & Ammo]

I asked this question on another forum and I have yet to get a straight answer. When selling any firearm to an individual, how do you know that person is not a convicted felony, has restraining order against them or has a mental illness? The background check is not 100% fool proof but is better than nothing. So I'm all for it if they keep it the way it is. Just about all of you have bought a gun at a dealer and went through the background check so why is this any different?

James

 

[Alnamvet68]

In order for this "emhanced background" check to work, the powers that be who have been suing the pants off hospitals and healthcare providers for having violated (and in most cases, inadvertantly) HIPPA privacy rules ($50,000.00 fine for each occurance), are now going to have to backtrack their "concerns" for the privacy rights of patients, and now order any and all providers to enter into a national database (NICS) all those diagnosed with a mental disorder. This will include every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, Coastie who suffers from PTSD, every victim of a crime who takes an occassional sedative or anti-depressant because of the trauma associated with being a victim of a crime, every child who was forced to take ADHD medications while in school...can you see where I'm going with this?

 

[glowe]

I see no problems with a background checks as long as their is no registration. How to enforce it? Really cannot enforce it if their is no registration. So I'm all for it as long as it does not require any form of registration or any other steps.

James

Think about this - Today, the only people who can access NICS are ffl holders to run gun sales background checks. Therefore, all firearms transactions will have to go through ffl dealers. The rules for ffl are that the ATF can, at any time request all records from any and all dealers. That information contains names, addresses, serial numbers, make and model, etc. Your gun is already registered when the NICS check is done. Give background checks a few years and the ATF will have access to the owners of the majority of firearms in the US. This no registration garbage is a fallacy, since that information already exists on paper.

No one has mentioned the costs associated with background checks. It will certainly benefit the ffl holders, who will probably raise their fees, since demand will be much higher. In some rural areas, there are no ffl dealers around at all. I would not be happy to have to go to a ffl if I want to dispose of a long gun or give one away to a relative, but that is what will happen if you do not want to violate the law. I have also heard talk of government fees/taxes associated with gun transactions. Lastly, you sell a $2000 gun and that is income. You can bet the IRS will soon find a way to collect taxes on every sale!

I am of the opinion that hardly any of the people polled by these networks and polling companies could tell you what NICS stands for, let alone the ramifications of passage.

The good news? ffl dealers will make more money for a free service. The government will hire thousands of people for NICS, ATF, Homeland Security, and some just to have them around, thereby generating more bureaucracy than anyone can fathom.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I am of the opinion that hardly any of the people polled by these networks and polling companies could tell you what NICS stands for, let alone the ramifications of passage.

You're probably right. However, here's a guy who knows something about it-- David Keene, President of the NRA. According to David, the NRA is one of the biggest supporters of NICS; has suggested that the ATF set up shop at gun shows to ensure everyone is checked; praises President Obama for proposing to expand NICS even more with additional mental health data, and while he thinks enforcing background checks between friends and family would be difficult, he'd like to see the proposal (I interpret that to mean he'd like to inspect it rather than necessarily wanting to see a proposal to be drafted). In any event, I didn't hear a lot of dire 'ramifications'. So if this is the message that is being pumped into uninformed households across the nation, then why would we expect anything less than a full scale nod of approval?

CBS News to NRA President: Is the NRA just going to keep resisting? » The Right Scoop -

I find it very disappointing.

 

[Pasifikawv]

If any citizen had the ability to call into NICS at no cost, that would be one thing.

As the proposal stands, law-abiding citizens would have to travel to a federally licensed dealer and pay them a fee to do the process. With FFL transfer fee ranging from $20-$175, how is that not equivalent to a "poll tax" i.e. an unConstitutional law requiring that persons pay a fee in order to exercise a fundamental right?

 

[Black_Sheep]

I find it ironic that many of the respondants supporting "universal background checks" are New Yorkers whose 2A Rights have been decimated by over-reaching legislation. Sorry guys but I have to respectfully disagree with your position.Agreeing to "reasonable" concessions is what got you where you are today. What Rights will you give up next when the universal background checks fail to stem the flow of "illegal" firearms in to your state? Gun running is a highly profitable criminal enterprise that no amount of legislation will ever stop.

There comes a point where you either throw your hands in the air and give up or draw a line in the sand. It's time to draw the line, regardless of how reasonable sounding it may be, no more anti-gun legislation, zero, zip, nada...

 

[BobC357]

My problem with background checks is that it is de facto gun registration. The investigative agency now knows you are buying a gun or guns. Now, they know you have one or more.

If you think they ever purge those records, even when the law requires it, you're wrong. Time and time again we see purged records showing up. It doesn't happen and the government always says, "we're sorry" and people actually believe them.

 

[Comrad]

The government knows EVERYTHING about us already. With a background check the FFL will have a record, so what. All that says is you once bought a gun. They have no way to know that it was lost destroyed sold whatever. The only way they are going to take them is to kick our doors down and when that happens we got bigger problems than background checks.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Just what is the goal of a background check anyway? Sure, they'll check for convicted felons, folks with warrants, terrorists, etc. but there has been a lot of talk about "Mental" or "Emotional" concerns. What criteria is going to be used to deny a U.S. citizen the right to keep & bear arms? Will the check list include:
Paranoia
Schzophrenia
Depression
PTSD (that'll eliminate most of our returning vets)
Autism
PMS (that takes care of the ladies)
Eating disorders
Anxiety Disorder
Manic / Depression disorder
Any kind of phobia
Bi-Polar Disorder
Alzheimers
obsessive / compulsive disorder
Sleep Apnia
Gas
Heebie Jeebies
Willies
Did I leave anyone out?

Yes, you did.

What about the countless millions wandering around with a disqualifying mental health condition but are yet to be diagnosed?
Can we dare allow them to have a gun? Would it not make sense to mandate that anyone who wants to purchase a gun report the the Federal Center Of Is Your Mind Right ? For that matter, why not mandate all current gun owners to report immediately as well as have periodic FCIYMR checkups? With the national healthcare system we are imposing upon ourselves, we are told that the main objective is early detection to prevent more serious problems in the future. With this in mind, why wait until someone with a gun and undiagnosed disqualifying mental health condition kills someone? We must act now!

How about drug users? Do we really want to sell a gun to a crack head? Employers drug test equipment operators and even office workers. Pre employment drug screening is a widely accepted practice across the nation right now. It's a quick and easy test (which some think should be the barometer for these things). So why not extend it to gun purchasers? For that matter, why not mandate that all gun owners report to the Federal Center For Minds On Drugs? For those who pass drug testing and are allowed to keep their guns, periodic and random testing might be a good idea too.

 

[Comrad]

I find it ironic that many of the respondants supporting "universal background checks" are New Yorkers whose 2A Rights have been decimated by over-reaching legislation. Sorry guys but I have to respectfully disagree with your position.Agreeing to "reasonable" concessions is what got you where you are today. What Rights will you give up next when the universal background checks fail to stem the flow of "illegal" firearms in to your state? Gun running is a highly profitable criminal enterprise that no amount of legislation will ever stop.

There comes a point where you either throw your hands in the air and give up or draw a line in the sand. It's time to draw the line, regardless of how reasonable sounding it may be, no more anti-gun legislation, zero, zip, nada...

As a devil's advocate I have to ask, where was the NRA when our second amendment rights were being decimated in states like NY, NJ, CT, MA, etc.

I'm not defending or advocating background checks even though I have to live with them. I just find it ironic that there is all this outcry now. We've been suffering for decades.

 

[Alnamvet68]

With the recent advances in gene research, specific gene anomalies that relate specifically to each and every diagnosis as currently found in the DSM IV, have been discovered and it is not a stretch to believe that genetic testing will be mandated on all new born's, and all current citizens of age to determine if their "helix" is wound a tad too tight, hence rendering them ineligible to own guns now, or in the future. Unless you're built like me, old school and wrapped just right, most folks these days are either wrapped too tight, or wound up too loose, so very few people are going to be qualified to own a handgun; yeppers, that's where we're going...Soylent Green comin' to a neighborhood near you. SWCA folks, you're going to have to content yourselves with pictures in the near future.