Ronin_LLC wrote:
Background checks are hardly onerous and likely won’t “unjustly” disqualify that many people. A check usually process very quickly at the point-of-sale and even abnormally long wait times top out around five days. It’s hardly an excessive burden for someone seeking a deadly weapon they’ll then be able to own for life.
But does current federal law unfairly bar certain groups of people from acquiring guns? Currently, only one percent of sales are blocked by background checks, the vast majority of which because the purchaser has committed or been indicted for a felony, is a fugitive from justice, or is a perpetrator of domestic violence. Presumably, both the percentage and absolute number of people denied would go up if the background check system were improved, but the breakdown suggest that only a minute number of (for example) harmless, recreational drug users would have their access to guns restricted because they failed a drug test.
Moreover, it’s critically important that felons be restricted from accessing firearms. The New York Times surveyed felons and people convicted of “domestic violence misdemeanors” who (as a consequence of state-level, NRA-backed legislation loosening restoration standards) regained their gun rights. It found that 13 percent went on to commit crimes, half of which were felonies. As the Times notes, there’s also evidence that denying handguns to people arrested for or convicted of felonies reduces their likelihood to commit future crimes by 20 to 30 percent.
It is almost certainly true that universal background checks and a more complete database of disqualified persons will lead to less people being able to buy guns legally. Some fraction of them likely wouldn’t commit crimes — your average pot smoker isn’t the violent type. But the misguided excesses of the war on drugs shouldn’t obscure the fact that, right now, domestic abusers, violent felons, gang members, and drug addicts can buy guns with impunity. The evidence is very clear that members of these groups are more likely to commit gun crimes and that improved background checks can limit their ability to do so, saving lives in the process. A minor limitation on a tiny percentage of Americans’ ability to buy guns seems like a trade-off that’s easily worth making in light of America’s gun homicide rate.
End of debate. Period.
Or not...that is the beauty of the first amendment.
Since its creation/ implementation NICS has been claimed to have stopped 1.8 million "criminals" from purchasing a firearm. This is horse crap and pretty obviously.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaign … w-loophole
1) mayors, DA's, Federal Prosecutors would ALL be racing to the microphone with arms full of the criminal records of all these illegal purchasers if it were true.
2) MOST of the "stops" were the same kind of crap as the "terrorist watchlist" and no-fly list issues...similar name to a bad guy, uncleared charges (no conviction),etc,etc.
3) most of the "stops" went through at a later date.
4) we didn't put 1.8 million people in prison for illegally trying to purchase a firearm...duh.
The "universal" background may sound good to some in this reactionary moment, but I am not convinced.
1) it will not be "universal" in that criminals will still get firearms through illegal means...that's what criminals do.
2) It will simply put more pressure on all agencies involved, with limited resources. Giving way too many politicians another talking point about how we need to pay more taxes to hire more officers to do more checks.
3) I am kinda tired of having to fill out the current paperwork every time I purchase. This is 2013. I should be able to give the dealer my drivers license and he should be able to run it in a few minutes. I pop up in all sorts of data bases and none of them say "no" to me buying. I really ain't in the mood to add more paperwork.
4) You and everyone else has still not addressed the limiting factor of HIPAA regulations. I am not all that eager to give up even more privacy, but until a workaround for HIPAA is found, the current mental health check is nearly useless.
5) I will want to see VERY explicit information on what will and will not be used as a basis for denying a purchase based on "mental health" in the future. If you were given Ritilin at the age of 9, does that disqualify? If you had couples counseling with your wife before the divorce? If you suffered a traumatic event (death of a child say) and saw a psychiatrist for 8 weeks? ALL of these could be part of a bigger picture. NONE of them is an automatic disqualifier to me....I would want to be very clear going in.
6) Even if I accepted the claims of how effective background checks are or could be, I recognize it will not solve the problem of criminals and guns. For some reason so many on the anti-gun crowd seem to think only America makes and sells guns. Last I checked a LOT of countries export small arms. Heroin is illegal, how hard is it to get in the US?
I am not anti background, I am anti complicating the lives and time of MILLIONS, driving up costs to all involved, adding layers of paperwork, and filling gov't coffers just to make people feel like we did "something".
| 
| 
| edu