Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

Background Checks

Nine in ten Americans support background checks, the NRA says the checks are a government plot to confiscate your guns. What do you think about background checks?   
«1

Comments

  • I do support background checks. I think it is important to understand who exactly a person is before handing over a weapon to them. It won't fix everything, but it will help. Nobody is going to take your gun away if you don't have anything to hide.
  • 9 out of 10, where is the data for that?  Just so you know I am for background checks except for transfer of ownership between family.
  • I support background checks.  If "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", then it stands to reason that there would be fewer problems if we limit the people that have guns to responsible gun owners.  I'm not saying that some won't slip through the cracks, but a background checks will still help to keep guns away from those who wish to do harm to others. 
  • Posts: 234
    In the state of IL. where I live there is a mandatory background check through federal and state level and also have to have a F.O.I.D (Firearm Owners Identification card) card issued through the state police in order to buy or have a gun.There is a Federal mandatory background check for all states when a gun is bought through a FFL's licensed dealer.I see no problem with it at all and yes I am a hunter and gun owner.
  • Posts: 49
    No I do not support background checks.  This country was founded on the premise that free people are considered both law-abiding and responsible by default, unless their actions prove otherwise.   Free people don't need permission to exercise their basic human rights, one of which being the right to the means to defend themselves, their families and the communities.  

    I do not and will not tolerate the new paradigm that we are all potentially irresponsible, mentally deficient, criminal or terrorist until certified otherwise by government.  


    Thanked by 1harpazo22
  • Posts: 234
    I have to disagree having a background check is not taking any ones rights away,it is no worse then the police running a check on your drivers license when you get pulled over to check for wants and warrants,if you done nothing wrong what harm is done to any one.I don't see where that is a infringement on your rights to bear arms or own a gun.It is check your record not to diagnose any one.I do think each person should get a copy of the background check though.
  • I agree that everyone should get a copy of the report, and the ability to dispute certain things that may come up because there is always the chance of identity theft. Convicted felons are now free men, but they cannot get a firearm legally. I am not against guns, but I am for a more extensive background check, medical records and all.
  • Posts: 21
    How is a background check an invasion of privacy.  I have undergone more then one in the past when before I took a certain job.  I have also been required to do fingerprint checks, which is also as back ground check.  Hello, every time we get online our backgrounds are checked because of our ISP Address.  Make no mistake about it our lives are open books now and thinking that it's a invasion of privacy to do a background check to obtain a gun is not a good argument because we don't have the privacy we use to have. 
  • I agree.  I don't think it's an invasion of privacy, either. It's not like everyone is going to see it, just someone who is trusting me with a deadly weapon.  I understand that people don't want others to know facts about their lives, but to be fair, if I was selling a weapon, I wouldn't want to see in the news that a gun I sold to someone was used in a murder or robbery. 

  • Posts: 49
    OK fine, if you feel it does no harm, you won't mind us running background checks on you when you purchase other lethal weapons like automobiles, chain saws, knives, hammers, etc. right?

    The bigger problem with background checks is that the process is not transparent, thus open to political games, there is no real appeal process if you are denied, and if the "universal" checks are adopted, will cost private citizens money and time to do exchanges that have been perfectly legal for centuries. 

    Imagine one day you go to fly to your Aunt Tillie's for the holidays and find you are on the no-fly list...with no recourse, no appeal and no right to know why you are even on the list.  THAT is why people are against government controlled permission to perform normal daily activities like travelling or purchasing perfectly legal goods and services.

    If you are not offended by the fact that you are considered a potential criminal or terrorist by default by your government and your fellow man, I don't know what to say other than perhaps you don't deserve the freedom that was earned for you by the sweat and blood of our forefathers. 
  • Posts: 49
    Free men are "trusted" with a deadly weapon or anything else by default...no permission or background checks required.  On the other hand, if you are a subject, serf, or slave, yes you need permission  and a background check to do anything that might be potentially dangerous...to the state.  
  • Background checks are not going to harm anyone; the only issue I see occurring is where do we draw the line on who can own a gun and not? Obviously those with violent crimes on their record should not be issued guns, but what about when they robbed a store 30 years prior and haven't committed a crime since? What about autistic and mentally-ill individuals? Do we exclude ALL of them from owning a gun? I can't think of any other gray areas right this split second, but it is important to ponder.

    Another point I'd like to bring up is, background checks are not going to solve all gun violence. There are plenty of instances where background checks would not have prevented criminal acts. I am FOR background checks, but I think it will be other policies that will benefit this issue. 

  • Posts: 234
    If some one has done a violent crime without a gun or weapon then after he has served his time and remains clean for say 3 to 5 years then yes they deserve a chance to apply for a gun again if they pass the background check at that time.If  the crime involved a weapon then they chose to give up that right because they have already proved they can't be trusted with a weapon and decisions that go with it.If it involves a sex crime then I sure wouldn't trust that person with a weapon.non-violent and misdemeanors,traffic violations shouldn't count against someone.Mental health problems would have to be cleared by a qualified Doctor.I know that background checks is not the cure all to all the problems,but it would be a start.I think many are paranoid of our Government,I don't agree with the Government most of the time or trust them either alot of the time,but they sure don't make me paranoid.I would much rather have a mandatory background check then have some convicted murder or such or know mentally ill person legally have a gun.Remember I am talking about common sense laws and background checks.Paranoid people usually a hidden fear or guilt about something that makes them that way.I guess I don't have that,check away.I would be right there if I thought it was taking a right away from me,but I don't see that case here just for a background.I am all for guns and right to protect and will fight for that until the day I die.
    buzzwordb
  • Posts: 49
    I would much rather die than live in a country where the people are so fearful of their fellow citizens that they assume they are all potential criminals and terrorists until a background check proves otherwise.  

    FYI, background checks didn't stop the latest mass shootings...yet that is you answer?  Amazing, we truly have become an Idiocracy. 
  • All good input! Thanks for sharing your opinions. I think they're alright and not to intrusive, but the problem is that even if someone got a background check and it comes back clear, they could still end up going on a rampage. They don't really prevent or prove anything. But still, people should be allowed their 2nd amendment rights.
  • Posts: 234
    Why is so many stuck on mass murders,there are so many more issues at hand than just that one,but any thing that is said is referred back to mass shootings.I am talking about more then that and if some simple things can be done to help with any of these issues.Most will answer to the gun problems is not the guns and that is people,but yet some think we don't need to be cautious about what type of person has the right to own one.I don't think being cautious is being fearful of others.I do think being paranoid of change is a terrible fear to have,it makes you jump to all kind of dangerous conclusions.
  • It seems to me everyone is agreeing on the same thing here for the most part. There will never be a completely correct or a completely wrong answer. There are so many factors that can play into how guns should be controlled. The criminal or violent history of a given region should be one, not to say there should be any prejudice involved, but based on a factual database of violent crimes. There are areas where violence is much more prevalent, but that's diving into a whole other issue... 

    I've stressed this in other debates, that I think above all, even background checks, gun safety education and training is vital in restoring credibility in what weapons should be used for. 
  • I support background checks. I think it's important to review the person buying a gun. Criminal history, mental health ect.
    I don't support taking away guns, but I support making absolutely sure that we aren't placing them into the wrong hands.
  • Yeah I think background checks are important too. To make sure who the person is and it can prevent some of the unnecessary violence. Although some can come out squeaky clean and still  decide to go out and get a gun and commit a crime. 
  • I have lived in 5 different states, all which have different gun laws and standards for gun purchases. For example, in TN I had to have a background check done before purchasing a gun and take a test to receive a gun permit. I'm in PA now and there is no background check and no test. I am going to own a gun in which ever state I reside. I'm not sure if the federal government really needs to be involved in standardizing the gun purchase procedure. I think that's the big issue. State to State I'm used to but federally mandated background checks? Not sure what I think. In all actuality I don't think people who are committing violent crimes with guns are registered licensed gun owners so it may be just another way to get money from us because of them.

  • Again, no matter what State you live in, There is a Federal background check to buy any gun, the Instant check NICS, before you can buy any Rifle, Shotgun or pistol, you also fill out Federal form 4473, depending on what State and City you live in, other requirements may also apply.

    I have had an FFL for manufacture of firearms and worked in gun stores, it is not just a matter of a background check, the counter person also must discern intent of a purchaser, a young lady once wanted to purchase a Tech 9, as I was talking to her, I asked if she was familiar with the Tech 9, she said no, I asked if it was for home defense, she answered no, no for target practice, all the while she seemed apathetic and indifferent even somewhat hostile, she was not interested in firearms training, or gun safety of any kind, finally, she let it slip her boyfriend had told her to buy it for him, a strawman sale, and illegal by BATFE definition, since he could be a person prohibited from purchase, and even though it is legal to purchase a firearm to gift somone not prohibited, it is best for each person to purchase their own firearms, you can always give a gift certificate that anyone can use to purchase a firearm.
    I denied the sale to the young woman telling her if her boyfriend would come in and fill out the paperwork etc.... the sale could be made, however, not if he was convicted of a crime prohibiting him from owning firearms.

    She left the gun store and did not return, sometimes felons use people with a clean background to buy guns for them, relatives, girlfriends, wives, etc..... and often they could be stopped by a gun store clerk once that clerk has discerned it is an illegal strawman sale.
    I was always careful to ask discreet questions of people buying guns, and this would often alert me to an illegal purchase.
  • I don't see why there should be opposition to background checks. This method is not seeking to prevent qualified persons from acquiring a firearm, it's is designed to probably dissuade potential trouble makers from accessing guns and ammunition. Consider this: that couple involved in the Pasadena shootings acquire the weapons with through someone else because it would have probably raised suspicions if they had tried to get them on their own.  

  • explorerx7:
    The only opposition I have is to people that believe a background check solves all problems related to gun purchases, felons often state that it does not take them long to illegally purchase a firearm from another felon dealer of illegal firearms.

    A felon with illegal firearms will get caught carrying or using those firearms NOT by a background check, but by the Police, in the commision of a crime, or shot by a law abiding potential victim, with a legal concealed carry license.

    Background checks are not a magic mantra to keep repeating, as though crime will automatically disappear if we chant it enough.
  • Background checks are the basis of seeing if a person can handle being given a firearm or not. They should be thorough so that we do not trust a person with a killing machine and be okay with it.
  • Hozyboy;
    a background check here in the U.S. establishes that a person has no criminal record, nothing that prohibits firearms ownership.

    Your refreference is proving competency or proficiency with firearms, as a certified credentialed firearms instructor, I am qualified.
  • Posts: 17
    Background checks are necessary to make sure guns are in capable and stable minded hands. The NRA can go fly a kite. They are there to make sure their guns are sold and they hide behind the constitution to sell and back weapons manufactures. It's not about civil liberties. It's all about money and the financial backing the get from weapons manufactures.
  • Some people seem to want to suggest that background checks are designed to prevent law abiding folks from acquiring guns. But obvious that this is not the case. I believe it's an attempt to keep the guns out of the hands of undesirables, which is not an easy task anyway, but it should even keep a gun out of the hand a would be killer, it would be worth even one life saved.
  • I think background checks are important. I think this because you need to know who are person is, whether they have a criminal record or something of that category. Before you rent out someone a house, or give them a gun, etc., you want to make sure that their not crazy, or just plain evil. Hopefully, you understand.
  • Posts: 6
    Background checks are implemented on most EU countries, which is basicaly a rudimentary psychological evaluation and having a criminal record. Aside from background checks they also need you to take target practice classes and learn non lethal methods of self defence.

    A different kind of background check is that they don't allow people to get a hunting gun licence unless they belong to a hunting club, regardless of whether they participate in the club's activities.

    They also have restrictions of what kind of guns you can own and how many. E.g. you can't have a dozen semi-automatics lying around in your living room.

    Making sure someone's not absolutely out of their mind to see if you'll allow them to have a gun is not illogical, and neither is it absurd to say that guns made for a combat scene are not self-defensive guns.

    However there's many para-legal ways to acquire a gun, and surprise-surprise: countries with these kind of regulations still have gun-related crimes, but they involve illegally acquired guns.
  • Posts: 24
    I would be interested to hear somebody really argue against them.  I mean it would probably only be the people who the checks would prevent from attaining a firearm, but as long as that is the people who are deemed unfit then it is fine with me.  Of course that is really where the issue lays, then.  As far as I know there are still plenty of loopholes though, and who is to say that they are effective.  I am certainly in favor of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.