Gun Background Checks Supported By More Than 90 Percent

[Road Rat]

What kinda nutcase is against background checks?

Show me ONE case where the millions of back ground checks have prevented ONE crime!!!!!!

They are the result of knee-jerk laws pushed rapidly through the legislature to make the public Feel-Good.

And, in your case, I see they are working.

 

[rakstr]

Unfortunately, it's not limited to police chiefs anymore. Most of large private sector Companies run like this as well. It's much more about the "get along to get ME along" than doing what's right. And we wonder? Can't say anything more because, ................

Because they have become more politician than cop. Many police chiefs of larger departments will not hesitate to even screw over their own rank and file for political gain.

With my job I have to deal with many police chiefs. Some are still policemen at heart managing a department. They are easy to talk with and are open to different points of view. But those good chiefs sadly are in the minority. The majority picture themselves as some sort of a monarch ruling over their own little empire. You do not talk with them, you have an audience. They pontificate and you listen without interruption. They only are concerned with power and career. Your rights under the constitution are only a minor inconvenience to them.

 

[GKC]

Show me ONE case where the millions of back ground checks have prevented ONE crime!!!!!!

The prime case that is at issue here, the Sandy Hook school shooting, was done with guns that were purchased legally. The shooter took his mother's guns. So, in that case, a background check did not prevent the crime.

He was and is obviously deranged...and the issue is his mental health, and the mother's failed responsibility (for which she paid with her life; unfortunately, many others lost their lives as well) to secure her guns with an obviously disturbed individual in her home. Background checks and magazine capacity limits would not have prevented this tragedy...and even an AWB ban would not have prevented it, since he also had other weapons.

These proposals are merely knee-jerk reactions to the "we must do something" mindset of the general population, and an opportunity for those anti-gun advocates who have a far more insidious agenda.

The real issue is not legal gun owners...it is the mental health system, and the need to address the root causes of violence of all kinds.

 

[rakstr]

Given the recent trend to govern via more regulations instead of laws, this is a very real concern. Once the checks are in place, the regulations can be enacted/changed without congress and in the dark corners of individual agendas.

Here's my argument against universal backgroung checks. Although it seems sensible, especially at gun shows, it may very well limit future gun ownership rights. Who's to say the government won't place stricter rules to pass NICS. For example, restrictions could be made on how many firearms are purchased each year. You could reach a maximum ownership limit for each type of firearm. They could add other restrictions, such as, past traffic violations that may fail a NICS. Who knows what else. "Sorry, only brown eyed individuals are allowed to purchase a firearm this year". May sound a little crazy but it could happen. Once the universal background check law is in place for ALL gun sales, it's very easy for politicians to keep adding more restrictions over time until it's impossible to purchase a gun legally. They will errode our 2A right in small pieces over time because it's easier for us to swallow.

 

[spad124]

I live in Illinois. In addition to the 4473 process we need a Firearms Owners Identification card (FOID) and a driver's license to purchase a firearm. When you buy a firearm at a GS, the GS calls the Illinois State Police who run your license. There is also a waiting period of 24 hours for long guns and 72 hours for handguns. Originally this was marketed as a "cooling down period" for people buying guns with the intent to shoot their cheating spouse's lover. But, now the ISP uses the time to run the background check. And, yes, the ISP says they need more money to keep up with the volume of checks.

I understand that the ISP--like the ATF-- is supposed to destroy the approval records of the buyer within 24 hours of giving approval. But, that really doesn't matter overall. Both the ATF and ISP can start with the manufacturer and track from the manufacturer to the distributor, to the LGS to the purchaser.

Although I am not required to, if I sell a firearm to a private person I ask to see that person's FOID card and keep a record of that person's FOID number. I'd rather take that step that run the risk of selling my firearm to someone who cannot show me that they can legally own one in my state. Given all the anti gunners out there, I don't want my actions to place other firearms owners at risk of more restrictions or out right bans. And the governor of Illinois seems to be in competition with NY and CA for who can enact the most restrictive ban.

Also, if I'm buying from a private person, I have no problem showing them my FOID. To show responsible ownership I think we all need to comply with the laws that are on the books.

I've lived with this scheme for all 40 years I've been old enough to own a firearm. I doubt that 90 percent of gun owners favor background checks. I'd prefer to not have checks and waiting periods but I have to deal with them. I would favor going after straw purchasers who supply to gangbangers

 

[Titan]

The same gun owners among us, who favor carry for themselves, but would ban it for many guests on their own property, will help get this past.

Too many gun owners are all for 'reasonable restrictions', unfortunately.

 

[SMSgt]

Show me ONE case where the millions of back ground checks have prevented ONE crime!!!!!!

Do you realize how difficult it is to prove something that doesn't happen? No doubt BGCs have prevented the pruchase of firearms for those who cannot legally possess a firearm, but how does one go about proving it would have been used in a crime. The BGC only checks whether one can possess a firearm, not the intent for which it's purchased.

 

[Pa.Bill]

I from NYC and was that 1% who held a pistol permit.
Going though the NY City's requirements leaves you with the
understanding you can go though any checks, back ground or
other wise.
I don't understand what they mean by backrounds checks and I know how misleading they can make an issue.
BUT - where the hell did they get the 90% in agreement??
My Gun Club, Veterans Organization, History Club and in general conversation---I come up with nothing even close to 90%.
Infact all the percents and numbers they "Q" are ridicules.
My whole adult firearms life, I have yet to meet, hear, read about, one person, who had firearm knowledge That I would turst going to a range with.
And yet, these people 'Q' percents, numbers, pass laws, and instruct people on firearm safety. Just because the American people made a mistake and elected some to office does not mean they know anything about firearms and or the right of America people plus the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Show me ONE case where the millions of back ground checks have prevented ONE crime!!!!!!

Be careful about using that analogy. People will reply "show me one case where the DUI laws prevented one drunk driver from driving on our highways". Our reasons for supporting the 2nd A need to be articulate, positive and well thought out.

 

[Krell1]

People are right to be concerned about the privacy issues involved with any BGC. I can understand totally why someone with mental problems shouldn't be allowed a firearm of any kind BUT, what about those we don't know about? My guess is that a lot of such people never get treatment. As far as drug users go, unless they've been arrested, who are they? No law that I know of can possibly correct the problems involved with the wrong people getting guns. To repeat what everyone else has already said, this only hurts the law abiding collector or sportsman. My guess is the 95% of the people polled don't understand why we enjoy all the various shooting sports. Personally, I've been involved in shooting for 50 years and I've never fired my guns at anything other than paper targets. I consider it to be a demanding sport requiring discipline and practice to maintain whatever skill level I can achieve. I'm not what others would consider a collector but I would like to pass my guns to another family member who would use them and appreciate their value and accuracy. I don't feel we need background checks for that. I've also sold guns in the past and have no idea today where any of those may be.
Simple question....just what the hell has happened to our country??

 

[ladder13]

Alan Gottlieb trying to make a deal?

Gun-rights group negotiates with lawmakers on background checks | Local News | The Seattle Times

 

[red14]

The Quinnipiac poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters by phone between Jan. 30 and Feb. 4.

That boils down to 186,230 people represented by each vote.

I rarely put much stock in polls.

 

[thefriend]

They have the no fly list, make a no gun list and place people on it that should not be allowed to own guns. Then use that list to see if one is on it when a purchase is made.
Seems they have it backwards.

 

[rdf009]

If 90% (or even 51%) favor universal background checks, then I'm definitely in the minority.

Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that banning private sales is going to take guns out of the hands of criminals? Criminals are going to get guns no matter what. It's a fact. They steal them, they buy them on the streets from other criminals (who probably stole them), they're going to get them one way or another!

Why should law abiding citizens have to ask for permission from the government before buying a gun from a friend, neighbor, or private collector? All that universal background checks do are open the door to registration (and eventual confiscation).

I am a firm believer that guns should be legally bought and sold without any government involvement whatsoever. Criminals do it already. Background checks obviously aren't stopping them from getting guns!

It's pretty hard to back up our argument that "a gun is nothing more than a tool" when people on our side see no problem with having a background check done on them before buying one. Would you like it if your local hardware store did a background check on you before you bought a screwdriver?

And, no, I am not one of these people who only buys "unregistered" guns. I bought over 100 guns last year from dealers who did background checks on me. I passed every time with flying colors. I have nothing to hide. I got a ticket a few weeks ago for not wearing my seatbelt and a speeding ticket a few years ago, but that's the extent of the trouble that I've ever caused in my entire life! I'm just fed up with Uncle Sam sticking his nose where it doesn't belong when very little is being done to solve the real problems that we have in this country.

 

[SMAGE]

Background Checks can lead to registration the way the folks in power want to conduct them.
Giving up a little of your FREEDOM is like giving up a little of your virginity!!