The NEW Should Gun Owners Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun Poll!

[CarmelHP]

I voted yes, it doesn't take long, it is not really an inconvenience to wait a few extra mins for me and hopefully it keeps even a couple people from buying guns who are just going to cause problems with them and give the rest of us a bad name.
I know that they can get them anyways if they want but i believe that it does keep a couple bad people from getting a hold of guns.
That thought is enough for me to not care about a short phone call before i can buy a gun.

You can believe whatever you like. History and experience shows it to be wrong.

 

[ryan3030]

You need to examine your reasoning skills a bit more closely.

If the .gov were to dictate that you could only have a child if certain requirements were met and you were required to pass a "background check", would you be ok with it? After all, what's the issue if you know you can pass the check?

I honestly wish breeding required a permit already

No need to be condescending, my reasoning was sound. The point being with a reasonable background checking process it can prevent the less than savory individuals (the guys neither you or I want, Johnny Jihad or Clint the ex-con, doesn't matter) from owning guns.

Notice I said "in a perfect world". I know this really isn't possible because there are methods of obtaining a firearm other than through a licensed dealer.

After analyzing this train of thought though, it seems to be trending towards the fantasy of "if gun control could be perfect, would I give up my guns if it meant no one could own guns". My answer to that is a firm "hell no". So I'm already more in your boat than mine.

I enjoy playing devil's advocate

 

[Bond 281]

No need to be condescending, my reasoning was sound. The point being with a reasonable background checking process it can prevent the less than savory individuals (the guys neither you or I want, Johnny Jihad or Clint the ex-con, doesn't matter) from owning guns.

Notice I said "in a perfect world". I know this really isn't possible because there are methods of obtaining a firearm other than through a licensed dealer.

So you admit that people get firearms from people who don't have to give background checks, while simultaneously suggesting that giving background checks for people is somehow successful in preventing people getting them? I don't see how that lines up.

The simple fact is that background checks will literally do nothing to prevent people from obtaining guns. Anyone who wants a gun can get it either through a dealer, the black market, or stealing it themselves. There is zero factual or logical basis for mandated background checks. They are 100% ineffective. To claim that they should be required is faulty logic, and is purely based on emotion.

It's not just "10 minutes and a phone call" to keep guns from felons. It's your taxes and time being spent on something completely worthless. Even more, I had a 3 day delay on my background check which then cleared. Cost me an hour for travel and gas....for zero....ZERO benefit. It's proven background checks don't work, get rid of them.

 

[Sticky]

No. I agree that background checks do nothing to prevent a criminal from getting a gun. Except maybe at a gun store; but not always then.

The expense of that program is far greater than the benefits.

 

[ATM]

...I enjoy playing devil's advocate

No you don't.

 

[Westside]

ok; so I voted yes, but I am torn on this.
1) I think cars are far more dangerous then guns.
2) I don't think this country uses the death penalty enough.
3) I think the different ages to buy different guns is bad you either can or can't.
4) if your old enough to die for your country (i.e. military service) you should be able to have a beer or by any gun you want.
5) The list goes on but I want to keep it short.

that being said criminals currently are not allowed to own guns and just like requiring ID to buy alcohol at a store you should have to pass a background check at a store. But no waiting it must be instant like it is now.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

No. The Second Amendment means what it says.

 

[Bond 281]

that being said criminals currently are not allowed to own guns and just like requiring ID to buy alcohol at a store you should have to pass a background check at a store. But no waiting it must be instant like it is now.

Yeah, because ID'ing people who buy alcohol keeps it away from college and high school students, therefore the same with guns certainly has to be as effective.

 

[MTC]

...that being said criminals currently are not allowed to own guns and just like requiring ID to buy alcohol at a store you should have to pass a background check at a store. But no waiting it must be instant like it is now.

Funny. Never had to fill out a 4473 or other BS paperwork and have the proprietor of a liquor store call in my personal info to "headquarters" to get an official OK or permission to buy alcohol.

 

[finity]

I voted "never" but that's not exactly what I would have said but my choice wasn't there.

I think a means to keep guns out of the hands of someone who has been adjudicated incompetent or not of legal age is necessary. Those in those categories aren't mentally capable of making wise choices related to firearms & COULD pose a danger to others.

I personally don't think that keeping felons from being able to purchase firearms is right - especially non-violent felons. They have a right to self-defense as much as anybody else. If they are deemed worthy to be free in society they should have all their rights restored. I guess you could say they fall into the "mentally incapable of making good decisions" category but I think outside of a very few psychopathic/sociopathic individuals most criminals don't fall under the clinical definition of "incompetent". Also those who do could still be adjudicated as such in a related hearing.

Now, I have no idea how we could verify that someone hasn't been prohibited other than by using the instant background check that we have now.

For that reason only I guess I would have to say that ultimately I am OK with background checks.

ETA:

Now that I think about it, before the NICS requirement I guess there really wasn't a serious problem with "crazy" people getting guns. I'm not sure how that situation was handled in the good ol' days. Did gun dealers just tell them to get lost? Did people just keep a better eye on the crazy old coot with his double-barrel?

If someone had a good explanation of this it would be REALLY easy to convince me to completely do away with NICS.

 

[Westside]

Bond 281 & MTC

if you read the list i posted first. there would be no need to check people because the violent criminals would be one and done if you will.

That be said I am more in line with what finity had to say. with the currant system I see no other reasonable option.

what someone does with a legal purchase after they leave the store was outside of the realm of the this poll. therefore I omitted those thoughts from my vote. A string purchase, using someone else to buy something for a non allowable person is currently illegal as is transferring the ownership of a weapon to a known felon.

Therefore with the current law being that a person convicted of a felony can't own a weapon I see no other way for the store owner to reasonable determine if a person is allowed to own a weapon.

You have to undergo a background check to receive your LTCH. I would be fine with that being sufficient documentation to purchase a firearm. just as a drivers license is sufficient documentation to purchase alcohol. AND YES, every person who purchases alcohol in Indiana is required to present ID.

 

[finity]

Can anyone say that crime is lower or society safer than the time before restrictions started to be piled on.

Yes.

Historically the homicide rate is as low now as it was in the 50's. Over time society has become overall safer. I'm not saying that there aren't excessively violent areas or in certain demographics but ON AVERAGE a person has less chance of being murdered now than in the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's. Nics was instituted in the mid-90's.

The above discussion only revolves around the murder rate but even using all violent crime as an indicator we are still safer now than we were in the 90's (.74% in 93 compared to .42% in 2009) & we are still trending downward. There is not one crime statistic that is not trending downward since at least the mid-90's.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2009

Now, I'm also not saying that the reason for the decline in the crime rate is the NICS system. Just like you can't justifiably say that the reason for the (mythical, non-existent) rise in violent crime is due to NICS, either.

 

[Dough]

Yes, Because it helps filter out the bad apples. Even though it's not 100% reliable. A wife beater, major sex offenders, drug dealers, etc. don't need guns.

 

[MTC]

...if you read the list i posted first...

The list was read and acknowledged. Comment was only made on the last separate sentence, to possibly help those who are "torn" become untorn.

 

[mattfoley]

Shall not be infringed.

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes.

Historically the homicide rate is as low now as it was in the 50's. Over time society has become overall safer. I'm not saying that there aren't excessively violent areas or in certain demographics but ON AVERAGE a person has less chance of being murdered now than in the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's. Nics was instituted in the mid-90's.

The above discussion only revolves around the murder rate but even using all violent crime as an indicator we are still safer now than we were in the 90's (.74% in 93 compared to .42% in 2009) & we are still trending downward. There is not one crime statistic that is not trending downward since at least the mid-90's.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2009

Now, I'm also not saying that the reason for the decline in the crime rate is the NICS system. Just like you can't justifiably say that the reason for the (mythical, non-existent) rise in violent crime is due to NICS, either.

Once again, you're wrong. NICS checks came in after the downward trend was well under way so it certainly didn't cause it.

More Guns, Less Crime. The period from the late '60's (post-GCA) through the late '80's were when the restrictions were the greatest and also the highest crime period in the nation's history.There has been nearly a universal expansion in shall-issue carry laws in the same period and the decline came after the shall-issue explosion and post-FOPA.

 

[jdhaines]

I voted no, but I'm okay with it as long as they don't record the purchase. If it's simply a felon check then I can deal with it. Of course criminals could get guns other places anyway, but it may slow down or stop a few. My choice, however, would be no check.

I guess I believe that there area few low-level thug criminals who wouldn't go through the trouble to get guns the hard way if they couldn't just walk into a gun shop...It's a stretch but I can see it. Just like the criminals in my neighborhood. They won't break the window out of my truck but if I left the doors unlocked it would get tossed. Never had anything stolen from locked doors but one night my garage door was left open and a drill walked off. There are a lot of wannabe thugs who don't want the risk of major crimes. Backgrounds checks probably help keep guns out of their hands. I think that part of it is reasonable and probably the only valid argument I see for background checks.

 

[lane440]

no !!!!!!!

 

[Suprtek]

I have no problem with laws that prohibit criminals or otherwise unfit individuals from possessing firearms. I also realize that the definition of "unfit" can be another debate all to itself.

However, I should not be required to prove that I am a "good guy" in order to exercise my God-given rights. It should be the governments responsibility to prove otherwise. IMO, these requirements, along with others (like requiring a LTCH) violate more than just the 2nd Amendment. They also violate the 4th.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Shall not be infringed.

Matt, does this mean that you believe this for felons also?