Do background checks on guns really work? Critics AND supporters say ‘No’

dailymail.co.uk ^ | 27 January, 2013 | Staff

[marktwain]

Both supporters and critics of the federal background check system for gun buyers say the system is flawed.

Supporters argue the system is filled with holes and impeded by a lack of cooperation from state governments, while critics warn that even if the system were perfected it would in no way reduce gun violence.

Now politicians and those with a stake in the outcome are looking for ways to improve the vetting process for Americans who want to purchase firearms.

[marktwain]

Background checks are a failed paradigm that needs to be abandoned. They should be repealed. The money and effort spent on checking the 99 percent that are no threat should be spent on insuring that the 1 percent that should be prohibited from possessing firearms do not have them. These programs have already been tried and do work. A good example is project Exile in Boston, supported by both the NRA and gun control groups. Focusing resources on the 99 percent of the population that are not a threat is ineffective and inefficient. The purpose of the background check system has always been to lay the groundwork for universal gun registration, which becomes effective gun confiscation over time, as it has in the UK. We in the U.S. do not want to go down the road the U.K. has taken. Gun control has proved to be a slippery slope that does not prevent crime but does destroy freedom. The UK had less gun crime when it had no gun control.

[Biggirl]

First enforce the present gun laws and not add new ones.

[apillar]

Guns are the same as illegal drugs in that if you have the cash you will ALWAYS be able to find a supply no matter what roadblocks the government puts in the way. Felons and other “banned classes” don’t go through the background check process anyway (unless they happen to be terminally stupid). They either have a friend or relative purchase the gun for them (straw buyer) or they steal one from a legal gun owner or, most commonly, they just wave some cash around and make it know in the circles they run with that they want want to buy a gun and magically one pops up for sale.

[Russ]

Stories about background checks not working are just a prelude to a gun ban. The thought process is that if we can’t depend on background checks to stop guns from getting into the wrong hands then we better not let anyone have them.

[556x45]

Consider also how easily the system can be corrupted. We got a small glimpse of that via Fast & Furious.

[DManA]

Whether they “work” depends on your goal. If your goal is to discourage people from owing guns I’m sure they work quite well.

[Texas resident]

Background checks are already in place.
Their argument is that they don’t.
Their goal is to establish a new background check procedure which will be a national registry of gun owners.

Their version of gun control is really about citizen control. If they were serious, they would go after their voters in the hood. Take a look at their voters did in Chicago over the weekend.

[heylady]

I don’t trust anyone in government. You fill out the form for the background check, the clerk enters the data into a computer, and then it is sent to the GOVERNMENT to be “checked”. After it is SUPPOSED to be destroyed. I don’t believe it is destroyed but is put in a file much like a gun registry.

[moovova]

Well, if you’re a law-abiding gun owner, “what difference does (a background check) make”? /s

[Travis McGee]

[petro45acp]

So long as it is only a “fitness to buy” check, and contains no information about the purchase(er) other than the fact of a purchase (no firearms specific information) it is much less an infringement than otherwise might be in place.

Most of the laws concerning firearms ownership (not those intended to affect criminals who use firearms) are unconstitutional despite what the scotus might say. If it infringes on the right of a citizen to acquire, keep, or bear, it is unconstitutional.

Enforce the Bill of Rights, repeal unconstitutional laws.

.02, YMMV

[BerserkPatriot]

Was posted a few days ago, but well worth repeating:

‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/universal-background-checks-absolutely-not/#axzz2IomN3hMM Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- Or, Imagine if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection. That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners. Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals. It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition with having federal firearm dealers license. It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that’s all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else. Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the Obama Administration currently doesn’t have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It’s backdoor gun registration. This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you. That’s why NRA Members and the nation’s 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

I’d accept a national firearms owner I.D. stating that I have passed a NICS check and therefore eligible to own, buy, sell and carry any firearm, at any time, in any state.

No FFL’s for transfer, no registration, no permits. One I.D. that states that I am not disqualified from owning a firearm.

Anything short of that is a non-starter.

[VaRepublican]

Goodness gracious! If we were to just ban all firearms we wouldn’t have to even deal with this mess. JEES!!!! we could move on to more important matters like uni health care. C’mon rednecks let it go. I mean jees,only a few are making the rest of us suffer.

[itsahoot]

We in the U.S. do not want to go down the road the U.K. has taken. Gun control has proved to be a slippery slope that does not prevent crime but does destroy freedom.

Recent elections would suggest otherwise.

[itsahoot]

I’d accept a national firearms owner I.D. stating that I have passed a NICS check and therefore eligible to own, buy, sell and carry any firearm, at any time, in any state.

Strange I thought that was a birth certificate function.

[Cyber Liberty]

Preference 1: Get rid of the useless background checks.

Preference 2: Open up the NICS registry to let people see why they get either denied or delayed, and to allow them to challenge it if it’s wrong (as often happens with these federal lists).

[NY.SS-Bar9]

I think there are people with BC’s that should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm. (Or elected office for that matter)

[Cyber Liberty]

Apparently failing a “background check” is a crime. Interesting statistic I heard from NRA: There were over 72,600 check failures in the most recent year reported (2010), and of that, 62 prosecutions (no word on conviction rate. Prosecutors only followed up on 44 of the cases).

Bite Me was asked about that at the big summit, and he said DoJ didn’t “have the time.”

[itsahoot]

(Or elected office for that matter)

You are half right for sure. Unless a citizen has by rule of law lost their right to own firearms, then they have the right to buy or own them.

Citizens are born with Constitutional rights, have no burden of proof, the onus should be on the government to prove that they have lost their legal right, to own and use guns.