Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

[Merope]

Prevalence and Age-of-Onset of Mental Disorders

"Unlike most disabling physical diseases, mental illness begins very early in life. Half of all lifetime cases begin by age 14; three quarters have begun by age 24. Thus, mental disorders are really the chronic diseases of the young. For example, anxiety disorders often begin in late childhood, mood disorders in late adolescence, and substance abuse in the early 20's. Unlike heart disease or most cancers, young people with mental disorders suffer disability when they are in the prime of life, when they would normally be the most productive."

So more than 25% of the people with a potential for mental illnesses could pass a background check regarding mental stability, buy a gun, and subsequently become unstable.

Legal age requirements before purchasing a gun then? That would seem to be a simple common sense solution that wouldn't cost a lot of money to implement. People are already required to produce a state-issued ID in order buy alcohol for example. If 3/4ths of mental illnesses manifest by age 24 as you say, simply prohibit the sale or possession of a firearm by anyone 24 or younger. It wouldn't catch everyone but if it puts a dent in the number of these mass shooters that can get a gun it would be worth it.

 

[contango]

How would it keep nutjobs from getting guns legally? How does an administrative background check identify nutjobs, specifically the ones that are going to go on murderous rampages? And how does this help anything if they can manage to get one illegally?

When someone says something to the effect of "it's a start", it translates to me as "I know of no way to actually get from A to B."

I think this is a good point.

I work with children at my church, so I've been through the process known as CRB screening in England. It's basically a filter to attempt to keep sex offenders away from children. Not surprisingly my record came back clean, so I'm approved to work with children.

The thing is my piece of paper doesn't prove anything of great value. It doesn't say I won't offend in the future, it doesn't even say I haven't offended in the past. All it says is that I'm not known to have offended in the past.

For all it's obviously a good thing to keep sex offenders out of positions where they have pretty much unfettered access to children, this reliance on pieces of paper runs the risk of parents suspending their own judgment. I'd rather see parents wary of the guy who looks at their daughter in a way that makes them uncomfortable, rather than figuring it must all be fine because he's got the right piece of paper.

In the same way a government checking system for gun ownership needs to be sure it catches the right people quickly, has a fast and efficient record of correcting errors, while at the same time not discouraging people from seeking treatment for minor mental health issues for fear of being tagged on a giant database somewhere and being forever tarred as a "nutjob".

 

[wmpratt]

Not sure how a background check would violate the 1st amendment but I don't see how it would violate the 4th.

2nd violation "keep (own) and bear (hold in hand)" "shall not be infringed - The federal govt is forbidden to have any laws which inhibit "keep" and "bear".

4th violation - illegal search, namely the search of state records.

 

[Merope]

1st violation "keep (own) and bear (hold in hand)" "shall not be infringed - The federal govt is forbidden to have any laws which inhibit "keep" and "bear".

4th violation - illegal search, namely the search of state records.

Ah, I think you mean the 2nd Amendment. As for the 4th Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches. If the law is changed so that a background check is required before you are allowed to purchase a firearm, and you give authorization to perform the check? That isn't unreasonable.

 

[Blackguard_]

If the law is changed so that a background check is required before you are allowed to purchase a firearm, and you give authorization to perform the check? That isn't unreasonable.

Unless you're saying a law requiring a background check check makes it automatically a reasonable search, giving "authorization" to perform a required background check by purchasing a gun is consent obtained under duress, which is not consent at all.

It's the same sort of twisted logic people use to say you "consent" to the TSA searches, like you really have a choice..

(I'm not saying whether a background check is a reasonable search or not, just that I think the "consent" angle doesn't work)

 

[Merope]

Unless you're saying a law requiring a background check check makes it automatically a reasonable search, giving "authorization" to perform a required background check by purchasing a gun is consent obtained under duress, which is not consent at all.

It's the same sort of twisted logic people use to say you "consent" to the TSA searches, like you really have a choice..

(I'm not saying whether a background check is a reasonable search or not, just that I think the "consent" angle doesn't work)

Actually it works fine. You're not under duress when you go to purchase a gun because, well frankly, no one is holding a gun to your head. You do not HAVE to have a gun. If you don't want the gun dealer to do a background check on you don't bother applying to purchase one. Just like if you really don't want the TSA inspecting your bags and putting you in the naked pics body scanner? Don't fly. Sure it makes decent and rational people uncomfortable, but decent and rational people don't try to bring a bomb on a plane or buy guns with the intent to kill a bunch of innocent bystanders.

 

[MachZer0]

Legal age requirements before purchasing a gun then? That would seem to be a simple common sense solution that wouldn't cost a lot of money to implement. People are already required to produce a state-issued ID in order buy alcohol for example. If 3/4ths of mental illnesses manifest by age 24 as you say, simply prohibit the sale or possession of a firearm by anyone 24 or younger. It wouldn't catch everyone but if it puts a dent in the number of these mass shooters that can get a gun it would be worth it.

How about if we do the same for voting?

 

[Merope]

How about if we do the same for voting?

I'm all for that. Under 18, not allowed to vote. Over 65, no longer allowed to vote.

 

[MachZer0]

I'm all for that. Under 18, not allowed to vote. Over 65, no longer allowed to vote.

Sorry but you specifically referenced under 24

 

[Bubbahotep]

As said earlier, it's de-facto registration. Registration is the first step towards confiscation. As so, I would never support it, or comply with it.

 

[seeking Christ]

How would people define mental illness and restriction to firearms?

Since most of the people going on homicidal rages have been on psychiatric drugs, I think prescription to those drugs shown to cause that behavior should be the trigger to temporary forfeiture of possession and permits, until the prescribing Dr determines that they are off the meds, and stable.

 

[seeking Christ]

If you don't want the gun dealer to do a background check on you don't bother applying to purchase one.

This is not at all consistent with the second amendment clause "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Apply to purchase? This would be a new thing. In fact the "may issue" standard has been changed to "shall issue," in a few places, recently. Likely for the same reason.

Just like if you really don't want the TSA inspecting your bags and putting you in the naked pics body scanner? Don't fly.

Unacceptable.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

It's the same sort of twisted logic people use to say you "consent" to the TSA searches, like you really have a choice..

It's worse than that.

That person [refusing the search] will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.

 

[seeking Christ]

As said earlier, it's de-facto registration. Registration is the first step towards confiscation. As so, I would never support it, or comply with it.

Ah, but then you'd be a criminal. And when only criminals have guns ...

 

[Merope]

This is not at all consistent with the second amendment clause "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Why can't I own a nuclear weapon if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? Debate over. Swish! 3pts!

 

[Rion]

4 Questions About 'Universal Background Checks' for Gun Purchases - Hit & Run : Reason.com

1. How universal? After the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that requires everyone who buys firearms at a gun show to undergo a federal background check... Now Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper wants to go further, requiring background checks for private sales that do nor occur at gun shows, which are said to account for 40 percent of gun purchases in his state. That policy seems tantamount to banning private sales, since a licensed dealer with access to the National Instant Check System would have to be involved in every transaction. And if Hickenlooper is serious about making the requirement universal, simply giving your guns to someone—a father passing his hunting rifle to his son, for instance—also would have to be criminalized.

2. How would the requirement be enforced? To make the background check requirement stick, you have to know where the guns are at any given time and when they change hands. So now we are talking about a national registry of gun owners, enabling the federal government to make sure everyone who obtains a firearm is allowed to have one.

4. How is this supposed to prevent mass murder? James Alan Fox, an expert on mass shootings, notes that "most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization," so "they would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally."

I cut out huge sections to make it 20%, but that's the gist of it for the tl;dr crowd.

 

[seeking Christ]

Why can't I own a nuclear weapon if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? Debate over. Swish! 3pts!

No swish. Arms are defined better than that

 

[GarfieldJL]

Why can't I own a nuclear weapon if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? Debate over. Swish! 3pts!

The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms, it has nothing to do with WMDs.

A gun can be aimed and fired at a particular target.

If you lobbed a nuke at a burgler, you'd not only kill yourself in the process, you'd take out everyone in your neighborhood and probably a good chunk of your home town.

 

[Crusader05]

Why can't I own a nuclear weapon if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? Debate over. Swish! 3pts!

Heller vs DC ruled the 2nd Amendment refers to weapons in common use, nuclear weapons are certainly not in common use (same for RPGs, artillery and explosives etc).

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I have written my 2 US Senators and 1 US Congressman and told them I support closing the loophole for sales at gunshows, but am opposed to a national database, opposed to a ban on "assault weapons", and opposed to a ban on large ammo clips because data doesn't support any correlation to these "assault" weapons and homicides. I also told them I support the NRA position to arm schools, but suggested that teachers have stun guns or tasers and the principal be allowed a firearm of his selection but must also meet the requirements of a top secret security clearance like sky marshalls, which would include an annual lifestyle polygraph.