Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

[wing2000]

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."

We certainly need to do more work in to "identify the nutjobs" and it will be complicated to say the least. However, no system will be successful unless we have 100% screening as a starting point.

Today, forty percent of gun sales are made with no account for who the buyer is.

 

[seeking Christ]

Well I'm no expert on this but I believe most major mental illness is present by the time someone is a teenager. If/when a court rules someone is mentally unstable their data should be entered into NICS and subsequent gun sales should be disallowed.

I disagree with this approach. Mental health is a variable. You don't come down with a cold as a teenager, and have a cold the rest of your life do you?

And the even bigger part of the puzzle is meds to treat such conditions. Some of them trigger some really abnormal behavior, and is what we should be concerned with.

 

[Crusader05]

I disagree with this approach. Mental health is a variable. You don't come down with a cold as a teenager, and have a cold the rest of your life do you?

And the even bigger part of the puzzle is meds to treat such conditions. Some of them trigger some really abnormal behavior, and is what we should be concerned with.

Right, I'm not an expert on this but if it isn't a permanent condition and someone get's better I think they should be able to have their record cleared.

 

[seeking Christ]

That was interesting info someone linked, that 75% of all lifetime cases are apparent by the time one is a teenager. I would hope none of those folks would ever have occasion to be near a gun, but this is what happened in Sandy Hook.

I would think our concern with gun legislation would be those non-lifetime cases. Such that a gun owner is confronted with a decision: if you want to try this med which might help you, you have to be willing to forfeit possession and permit until the Dr says you're off that med and not suffering from withdrawals. Or, you can try this med over here which might not be as helpful, but is "cleaner," and w/o the dangerous side effects. I think this would exert economic pressure on drug companies to stop screwing with people so much, and would be a good thing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Personally, I see no issue in expanding NICS to private sales so long as we expand the capacity of NICS to ensure private citizens can call and get checks done in an expeditious fashion. In the last few weeks NICS was flooded with calls due to elevated gun sales and some folks were waiting upwards on an hour on hold for NICS.

I agree with this statement.

However, I also would like to make sure that private citizen sales aren't charged for NICS checks as well.

If we're going to expand this, it should be for the right reasons and not a means for the government to make extra cash.

 

[Crusader05]

I agree with this statement.

However, I also would like to make sure that private citizen sales aren't charged for NICS checks as well.

If we're going to expand this, it should be for the right reasons and not a means for the government to make extra cash.

I agree, I don't want to see the gov't nickle and dime people for private sale checks.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Oy vey - so let's sit back and do nothing.

This isn't an actual argument. Doing something isn't automatically better than doing nothing.

 

[iluvatar5150]

However, I also would like to make sure that private citizen sales aren't charged for NICS checks as well.

Why not? Make the purchaser pay for it. There are lots of checks and application fees that work like that.

-Dan.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Not necessarily, as they could go by receipts showing you transferred the gun legally. Granted, whatever system they use to do the background checks(4473's, NICS) will be used to build a de facto registry.

You do have a receipts for all your guns showing you bought them before the private sale ban went into effect, don't you?

I lost all my guns in a boating accident.

 

[samhall]

More job security for bureaucrats will not make anyone safer.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why not? Make the purchaser pay for it. There are lots of checks and application fees that work like that.

-Dan.

It's not fair to make the seller or purchaser pay an arbitrary fee (for something that's likely computer-based and involves very little human intervention anyway), just as a way for the government to make extra money.

If Obama wants this done, let him fund it out of the tax revenue he's already got. Speaking as a software developer, it's not that hard to write a web/WCF service that would pull records based on social security numbers, and return a boolean value based on a pre-defined set of rules.

Heck, Obama, if you're reading this, hire me as a consultant (Fee is $85/hour), have your people tell me where the database is at, and I'll have it done for you in a week .

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's not fair to make the seller or purchaser pay an arbitrary fee (for something that's likely computer-based and involves very little human intervention anyway), just as a way for the government to make extra money.

It's fair as long as everyone knows the terms up front, right? At least, that's what people tell me about labor agreements.

I'd add that it's fair if it's not also excessive. Something like $25 on a sale of several hundred dollars is not excessive.

It wouldn't have to make extra money for the government, but it could be used to cover the administration of it.

Either way, it's not like this isn't already the MO of many state/local governments. How much is required of the DMV to re-register my car every other year? And yet, I have to pay them when I do.

If Obama wants this done, let him fund it out of the tax revenue he's already got. Speaking as a software developer, it's not that hard to write a web/WCF service that would pull records based on social security numbers, and return a boolean value based on a pre-defined set of rules.

Well, as a software developer, I'm sure you appreciate the effort needed to tie together multiple sources of data and to be able to handle what could very well be sizeable numbers of transactions per day.

Heck, Obama, if you're reading this, hire me as a consultant (Fee is $85/hour), have your people tell me where the database is at, and I'll have it done for you in a week .

Or maybe you don't.

-Dan.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Serious mental illnesses typically manifest in late teens to early 20s. People don't just become schizophrenic at 47.

Schizophrenia is usually teens to age 30 as the norm. Sometimes it's older though.


How would people define mental illness and restriction to firearms? Only schizophrenia? Depression?

People are also not mentioning a leading cause of mental disturbance - post traumatic disorder. This can make a person seriously unbalanced. A lot of people come from war with this. Should vets and ex-military not be allowed to own guns when they come back in case they snap?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Since 1993, the Brady law has required background checks on gun sales to private citizens. However, background checks can only be performed by licensed gun dealers and its estimated that forty percent of gun sales are done without a background check. If we are to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals, isn't it time we demand 100 percent screening?

Why not just ban private sales altogether? If you aren't a commercial vendor, you shouldn't be selling or giving any guns to anyone in the first place.

 

[Vylo]

Why not just ban private sales altogether? If you aren't a commercial vendor, you shouldn't be selling or giving any guns to anyone in the first place.

Why shouldn't I be able to sell my own guns? That doesn't make sense. Just require I document it and check to make sure the buyer is valid.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Background checks aren't any more perfect than any other licensing process. But it's a start, and it would keep nutjobs and felons from legally getting guns.

legally being the key word there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why shouldn't I be able to sell my own guns? That doesn't make sense. Just require I document it and check to make sure the buyer is valid.

Why? Because they're dangerous. We don't allow you to sell potentially dangerous prescription medicine (maybe all prescription medicine). The notion that everyone is going to perform background checks on private sales is ridiculous. How would the law know for sure whether or not you actually preformed the check? How do we keep people from abusing the checks and not just start checking their neighbours or their daughter's new bf?

Besides, the constitution only protects your right to bear arms...not the right to dispense them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, as a software developer, I'm sure you appreciate the effort needed to tie together multiple sources of data and to be able to handle what could very well be sizeable numbers of transactions per day.

Or maybe you don't.

-Dan.

Oh, I do...I've actually worked on programs much more complicated than doing background checks, and I'm saying as an 8 year industry professional, it would be very simple to write and as far as being able to handle a sizeable number of transactions, that's a hardware thing on the webserver, the difficulty of the code that needs to be written doesn't change regardless of whether it gets 1 request per day, or 1 million.

I can explain it in more detail if you'd like?

 

[wmpratt]

Since 1993, the Brady law has required background checks on gun sales to private citizens. However, background checks can only be performed by licensed gun dealers and its estimated that forty percent of gun sales are done without a background check. If we are to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals, isn't it time we demand 100 percent screening?

It violates the 1st and 4th amendments. That's why oppose background checks.

 

[Merope]

It violates the 1st and 4th amendments. That's why oppose background checks.

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