And the third option is to scream for more gun control… like a child yelling “My daddy can beat up your Daddy!” instead of dealing with it. I DO think NICS CAN be helpful only in that persons disqualified need to be identified to gun sellers to minimize (not control) sales to unstable persons. But since there are zero controls on knives or matches it’s really a moot point. Especially since GOVERNMENT is the biggest point of FAILURE when it comes to updating the system.
2 Likes
I would agree with you that it can be helpful to identify certain people who shouldn’t be buying guns legally. That being said, I think we all realize that those people will purchase their guns illegally if they truly are looking for a way to kill someone - or they’ll resort to a different method for murder.
a different method for murder - sounds like a mystery novel 
1 Like
They are only as good as the information entered by law enforcement. They are certainly better than nothing in any case. But they have zero impact on illegal means of acquiring a firearms. We should keep them until something better is divided.
2 Likes
Very true, @Randy. What changes would you like to see to the process?
Welcome to the Community!
1 Like
I would like to see an assessed cost to dealers not following the rules, though I doubt there are very many in this category. Making a required minimum jail sentence for thugs that deal in black market firearms. No discussion, you posses a firearm without the legal right to have then you, for example, get 8 months of free meals in jail. Society needs to start putting the blame where it belongs and holding those thugs accountable.
2 Likes
No, I don’t think they do, here is an article from Gun Owners of America where they most that most mass shooters did pass FBI background checks. Most Mass Shooters Pass the FBI Background Check | GOA
1 Like
We already have both of those and dealers caught unlawfully selling to ineligibles can and often do spend serious time in federal or state prison.
Licensed dealers are a tiny fraction of the problem just like otherwise law abiding gun owners are a tiny fraction of the problem.
In order for any background check system to have any significant effect on crime will require UBC’s, national registration of all existing firearms, and extreme penalties for the unlawful possession or transfer of firearms.
Of course, we have to shred about half of the bill of rights and constitution to accomplish that so it’s a non starter.
80% of the violent crime in the US is attributable to gangs and the illegal drug trade, about 96% of firearms used in crimes are stolen prior to the crimes they are used in and traded among the criminal class.
If we want to make a significant difference in violent crime rates we know where to start and it isn’t with stripping the rest of us of our rights.
2 Likes
Mass shootings are the exception to the rule and they make up less than .01% of all homicides and about .001% of all violent crimes.
When you start picking those apart you find that in many of them the only reason the individual passed a background check to begin with was that LEO, School, and Mental Health authorities who saw the problems coming chose to ignore them or simply failed to do what was necessary to have the individuals adjudicated and declared ineligible.
1 Like
WildRose, yes I was aware that the reality of mass shootings. The reality of mass shootings is that they comprise a small percentage of violent gun related crime. Background checks have been touted by the left as a means to keep undesirables from having access to weapons when in reality like all gun control, they are a failure. I had a rather interesting experience one time at a gun store that went out of business. I knew the owner by the way. I came in to talk to him about a firearm I was interested in, he looked a little frustrated and I asked him what was wrong. He told me that a person came into the store, was saying things that strongly indicated that the man was mentally disturbed. He wanted to purchase a firearm and the owner in the store encouraged him to go elsewhere. However the man persisted and he ended up purchasing a handgun, no sooner when the man left the store, the gun store owner called DOJ and told them about the man and encouraged them to deny the sale. They said since the man had a clean record, there was no reason to deny the sale of the gun and they actually told the gun store owner not to interfere with the sale. I was quite floored hearing this.
1 Like
I think that background checks will tell you, perfectly and 100% of the time, information about the purchaser’s past. It does nothing to predict how the weapon will be used.
1 Like
I don’t doubt it but that sale is on him. He has every right and even a responsibility not to sell to someone he believes may use the gun unlawfully.
That may be why he’s out of business. If that person went on to commit a crime with the weapon he sold them he might face criminal liability and would most certainly bear civil responsibility.
1 Like
But we know for a fact that they do not tell us perfectly or even close to perfectly what the person’s history is or even if they are legally eligible.
Welcome, but you might want to scroll up and read the thread for the numerous examples given.
1 Like
Welcome to the Community, @BillP. I get what you’re saying about it being about their past and not doing anything to predict how the weapon will be used. That is a great point.
The ability to “predict” how a firearm will be used makes me think of the movie Minority Report. Even if we could somehow predict someone’s actions, that wouldn’t be flawless either.
3 Likes
“Pre Crime” LEO activity is a terrifying thought.
2 Likes
I see your point. It’s another problem with the overall concept of background checks. Human error or neglect will never make the system useful except as a means to track weapons through sales.
1 Like
It definitely does deter some from getting firearms legally, that might prevent some of those who might do ill with them from buying at all.
Most however with ill intent will simply turn to the criminal market where over 80% of guns used in crimes are bought to begin with and of course nearly all of those are stolen.
Since we’ve had at least two admiinstrations violate the law by keeping traceable records of the sales more than anything it’s simply serving as a backdoor registration scheme.
3 Likes
Love that movie. Watched it again just last week.
2 Likes
It’s an interesting concept, but the human factor which is shown in there could easily be applied to the argument about background checks, right @Fish?
1 Like
Yes I do to a certain point. Here in Missouri its very lax. I recently bought 2 handguns within a 6 mo. period and my name was cked against a FBI data base and I was clear.
1 Like
I smile and chuckle every time someone tries to scare me or make me feel uncomfortable by telling me “well you know the FBI is going to do a background check on you”. I have been through a series 4000 CTSA background investigation done by the FBI while in the army (needed for working with nuclear stuff). They already know all my embarrassing stuff.
2 Likes