OPINION QUESTION: Do you think background checks work?

@KevinM definitely has an opinion on whether or not background checks work or not (you can see that here)

What do you think, do background checks work?

5 Likes

How many times do you see a pic of a police bust online and the caption says all the guns were stolen? I don’t think it’ll work, just another headache for me and you.

4 Likes

I don’t particularly care if they work or not. I’m still against them. I look at it like this. We the people need the government to be scared of us. Not the other way around. We also need to be able to defend ourselves against criminals. If the price of freedom is some illegal gun violence than as far as I’m concerned this is part of the cost to be paid for freedom. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try and midigate illegal gun violence. What I am saying is if we are going to remain a free people, said violence is always going to be part of the equation.

11 Likes

Only Law Abiding citizens get background checked. Criminals buy illegal firearms.

10 Likes

They only work as well as they are enforced. Most of the time you see them failing is because things are not reported that should be. I.E. the military veteran discharged for domestic violence but it was never reported to civilian law enforcement hence it never stopped him from buying a firearm.

At the end of the day bad people will find a way to do bad things. It’s a personal choice to either accept this fact and prepare for it, OR put your head in the ground and pretend it’ll never happen to you.

5 Likes

Yes, not perfect but better than none.

1 Like

First, there is no such thing as an illegal gun. There are guns in the hands of undesirable people, criminal or not. Background checks are wrong too. It’s just another step towards banning constitutional right to bear arms from people.

3 Likes

Background checks only work when the info is in the system, the seller submits it, and the buyer is being honest. Little Johnny gangbanger buying a gun from the back of a van in a Chicago alley, isn’t doing all of that. In those cases, background checks are stopping ZERO crimes. In fact, the whole act of that transaction is a crime. I don’t agree with the NICS system. It does nothing but hinder law abiding citizens.

2 Likes

Yes for good guy. But the bad guys or gals are always going get a gun the do there crimes…

2 Likes

Plain and simple is that it is only as good as the information provided by ALL the submitting agencies.
Background checks, done right, are a good thing to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, known terrorists and those undergoing mental health issues.
UNIVERSAL background checks, on the other hand, are not effective without a GUN REGISTRATION system which I am totally against.

4 Likes

Phil, as a retired LE I have come to know that criminals are not always the brightest people and have tried to purchase firearms knowing they are felons and the background check (conducted at the place of purchase) stopped the sale. Yes, I do agree that many felons purchase through “straws” and through other illegal means. Keeping the integrity of legal FFLs is imminent to ward off further governmental intrusions into firearms controls.

2 Likes

I guess that depends on what information they are looking for and how it will be used. As far as to help with criminal activity I think it has little to no effect. If someone wants to harm other individuals they will find a way. Personally I would rather have a shooter to deal with rather than being told a bomb is about to go off.

2 Likes

I see the point of doing back ground check, but I think they’re worthless. It’s not stopping anyone from getting what they want, good or bad. :us:

3 Likes

It is not a perfect system and we have known for many years that the FBI is overburdened and doesn’t have the resources to do it properly they would also work better if things were enforced better
All things being equal and if the system work the way it was supposed to then yes they would work more

1 Like

@Dawn, Just saw this discussion and clicked on the link, a story about being a good grandparent comes up. I’d be interested in reading Kevin’s opinion but couldn’t find it.

1 Like

Oh no! Looks like I’ve got a goofy link… one moment please :smiley:

I’ve got the tech wizards on the team looking at it for us. Thanks for letting me know!

2 Likes

We’ve got the article link updated! Thanks for the heads up, @Shepherd!

3 Likes

Background checks do not stop or influence a criminal action. It’s just a background check. Criminal acts are criminal intent. Background checks need no approval by the insane. It’s another law to belittle honest gun owners who need no gun laws. Guns and politics will never work together.

2 Likes

My opinion varies based upon how this question is framed. If we are talking about our CURRENT laws, then I think the process does provide certain benefits. A big one is that when a 3rd party FFL is used as a transfer agent for private firearms sales between two strangers, it removes the liability from both the buyer and the seller should there be illegal actions that one or the other would be unaware of. Does this cost an extra fee? Of course, but it is worth it to me when I am selling a firearm to a total stranger because by using an FFL for the transfer, I don’t really ever have to worry about law enforcement knocking on my door and asking awkward questions about what I did with “firearm, serial number such and such”.

Now, if we are talking about so-called Universal Background Checks, I see them only as virtue signalling at best, and a liability at worst. We have seen time and again that background checks do nothing to prevent criminals and psychopaths from getting their hands on a firearm. For instance, there was just a “mass shooting” in Darwin, Australia. Australia has long been the exemplar of “common sense” gun control advocates, yet people still manage to kill others with firearms. Also, these types of gun control programs would cost the tax payers all kinds of money. Just look at Canada’s failed gun registry and storage programs. The bottom line is that NO LAW will ever prevent humans from killing other humans (I’m pretty sure that murder has been illegal going all the way back to the ancient Babylonians). All they can do is disarm the very people that could and should be allowed to carry firearms for protection.

As a side note in regards to ineffective laws, I’d like to see the numbers on people who were killed by abusive and dangerous spouses/family members, and who had also been prevented from acquiring a firearm in a timely manner due to “common sense gun laws”. I’d be willing to bet it would dwarf victims of “mass shootings” over the same period of time.

1 Like

Anyone who has driven a car can attest to the fact that not everyone on the road should be driving. I think there are some people who shouldn’t have guns. My biggest concern is mental health. Unfortunately, there is no good solution to this. You can’t just take away a person’s rights. Most of the times that’s a good thing. Background checks have their place, and it’s the first filter that “should” prohibit people who have proven their inability to be responsible. No system is perfect. People feel very strongly on both sides.

2 Likes