|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?
I have seen many complaints about expanding background checks for gun purchases but I haven't seen reasons attached to the complaints.
Society has to go through tests to get things like drivers licenses before they can operate a vehicle, why the resistance to background checks? If you are an everyday citizen you have nothing to worry about.
Cold medicine. Because of some people using it to break the law I have to sign my life away to buy cold medicine. This is punishing the innocent. The guilty will buy their guns illegally. Owning and operating a car is a privilege not a right. Owning a gun is a right (for now). Having said this I am not against background checks to prevent convicted criminals from buying guns.
I'm willing to compromise with you. I'll go with universal background checks for gun purchases if you go with universal background checks and mandatory ID for voting in state/federal elections. If you are an everyday citizen you have nothing to worry about.
Hi Jack (do I know you?)
I think we should have a national ID card such as the one from the show Fringe. The card could be the background check, license, proof of citizenship, and currency. A show Me for everyone.
I guess neither of you have gotten your driving license renewed within the last year. It's gone federal now and you have to have all kinds of legal papers with you. Now auto renew now.
So the Lady agrees to background checks and ID for voters?
So you do or you don't agree with background checks and ID for voters. After all, an honest citizen has nothing to hide, If you are an everyday citizen you have nothing to worry about said the original post.
My state requires that I produce a valid government issued ID before I vote. It has done that for years.
Good, Larry... then you should have no trouble with it being a federal requirement.
Reminds me of the "Simpsons" episode where Homer decides to buy a gun. He goes to the gun shop, picks out his favorite, and when the guy behind the counter tells him it'll be a seven to ten day wait till his background check clears, Homer sez "Seven to ten days? But I'm angry now!"
I find it sad that I have to go through an extensive backround check (including providing letters from my my landlord) to adopt a cat from the SPCA, but I can just waddle into a gun show and buy whatever I want. I'm even more disturbed if Obama's numbers are correct and 90% of the American people supported this yet the lobbyists still managed to get this shot down. No pun intended.
Too bad georgie doesn't actually know what goes on inside a gun show. All buyers and all sellers must abide by all state/federal laws at a gun show, or over the backyard fence. If not, it is an illegal transaction.
Okay, Jack. So I CAN'T just walk into a gun show and walk back out without the same waiting period I would have if I bought from a local gun dealer? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
George, in a private sale, which is allowed in about 45 states, you can legally buy a gun across your back yard fence, in the parking lot of the local 7/11 or at the 'ol swimming hole. The gun show has nothing to do with where you purchase it.
But George, no matter where it is you buy the firearm both you and the seller MUST abide by all local/state/federal laws or it becomes an illegal sale. You get caught you go to jail.
FWIW, just because we SHOULD abide by the laws, doesn't mean we always DO. I have no problem with the law requiring a background check and a waiting period before ANY gun sale. Of course, this doesn't mean that the people who shouln't have them won't
Really, George... so you think it is completely ~reasonable~ that someone who already has 5 guns at home must wait a week to pick up his 6th gun just in case he is "angry" with someone? And Dear Readers, this is why gun control has failed so badly.
Yes, George, you are right... the bad guys will simply not abide by the law of background checks which pretty much means you're backing a meaningless law that accomplishes absolutely nothing. But it makes you feeeel gooood and that is very important.
If that guy with five guns has to wait a while so that the really mad p.o.'d one who wants to shoot his cheating wife can't do it today, then yes. Ice cream makes me feel good, violent folks with guns make me feel afraid. I don't like fear.
George sets the amount of freedom that others can have by the acts of those around us who are social deviants, weak minded and unable to process life in as a law abiding citizen. Those are the ones who determine your freedoms.
Twist it around all you like, but I believe I should have the right to not get shot by someone freak who shouldn't have a gun in the first place. Also, I refuse to argue anymore with someone who spells my name incorrectly 6 out of 7 times.
Majority rules, minority rights. Just because many people agree to trample the rights of free Americans, doesn't mean they can. Just ask a same sex couple if majority rules or minority rights.
I'm struggling to understand how background checks are trampling anyone's rights. Also, neither the majority nor the minority affected this outcome. Lobbyists did. IMO, big bucks are trampling all over everybody's rights to get what they want.
If background checks don't "affect anyone's rights" then lets have more of them... to buy a Bible... to vote in an election... to write a letter to the editor.... to assemble as a group.... to petition the government. All kinds of checks, eh.
Mr. Burton, you are going to the extreme. Guns can be dangerous. Five years ago I did not have cataracts on my eyes. Today I do. Do you not think my ability to fire a gun accurately has been impaired. I don't want to ban guns. I want reasonable regs.
You don't think religion and freedom of speech can be "dangerous"? And what happened to the concept of personal responsibility? The nanny state trumps all, eh. And sorry, but we don't trust you. When your current "regs" don't work you just come back
Jack made and excellant point by referencing all of the things he did. Cars kill more people than guns, but I don't need a background check to buy one.
I believe that people should have to pass a background check before being provided access to the internet. To pass this check, you must prove understanding that people are allowed to have their own opinions. Some of you need another hobby.
Georgie confuses us knowing that other people can have their own opinions and us knowing that some people have really stupid opinions. It's always those with especially stupid opinions who think their should be mandatory respect for their opinion
No, Jack, the stupid ones keep hammering their own opinions in until either the other folks give up or they think they've "won." It's sad, really.
Tell me about it, Geo. That's why this noted and respected liberal commentator takes fellow libs to task for doing just that over the issue of gun control -- http://tinyurl.com/ce6d7xr . She lays out six exceedingly dumb things the anti-gun folk do.
That's all fine and dandy, Jack, but I'm not a liberal. So I'm not going to bother with this link. I'm also not anti-gun. Thanks for sharing, though.
I'm not against background checks at all. And it's not hard. You can sell your weapon through an FFL dealer to your buddy. It would make more sense to require individuals to sell through the FFL dealer (for background check purposes) rather than having the individual seller perform the background check. When you buy a firearm online, you have to have it shipped to an FFL dealer. The same concept can be applied here with individuals.
It doesn't make sense that FFL dealers are obligated to do background checks while a private individual selling to a non family member can skirt this rule. If that is the case, you can now argue 'why even have background checks at all?' Most criminals won't be dumb enough to go to the gun store, they will steal it or find their buddies to buy from.
I agree with you. They should do extensive check including mental health checks, how were they like as a child in the schools and behavior checks. The guy that shot up VT was a mental case and they hid it from his files when he went to get a gun. OK let's give everyone a gun and we be all gun totten FOOLS. The Columbine boys, they seemed to have guns and ammo and where did they get them....oh wait let's blame the parents, well how did they get all that guns and ammo? How about the guy that shot up the theater, oh wait everyone needs a gun----in the dark? That would have been a true massacre with no survivors. Now how about those guns and ammo the guy that shot up all those kindergarteners? We say the parents had them and that is how he got them.....until we stop the blame game this will go on no matter if someone can or can't get a gun. Background checks are to protect the citizens that don't have guns, not the shooters. Sorry, off my soapbox for now.
perhaps you can look into your soapbox to explain why you want to make the 99.999 percent of gun owners jump thru hoops when it is 0,001 percent who cause problems. What other legal products that are misused by such a small percent do you control?
I don't think everyone should own a gun, period ...but those who want one we should make durned sure why they want them--especially if they are more than a had gu or hunting gun. Everyone does not need an assult rifle. That is my point.
What business is it of ~yours~ why people want a gun. As long as they don't hurt anyone with it then you have no more right to know why than I have a right to know why a neighbor wants an abortion.
The Lady doesn't know much about guns but she knows what everyone needs. She doesn't know that her so-called assault rifle is a preferred hunting gun by millions, and the standard deer rifle is much more powerful than that evil black gun she dislikes
Jack, your neighbor's abortion is much less likely to kill you than his AK47.
About ten million AKs and ARs out there in circulation. About 200 of them each year are used to harm someone. You can check my math but as I figure it, the odds are about 1 out of 50,000, or 0.0002 percent that one will harm me or you.
So... Geo., with a 99.9998% chance that me or anyone else owning an AK will never, ever do u or anyone else harm just what do u have against them other then you think they are black/scary looking? And maybe that aborted baby would have cured cancer
Still much higher than getting killed by your neighbor's abortion.
So would I. I would also not like to have to turn on the television and see that some gun toting maniac is shooting up a school. Again. How many of those kids could have cured cancer?
Since the ubc , by the admission of the sponsors who wrote it, would not have prevented Sandy Hook or any of the other shootings using SH as an excuse for passing it is living in fantasy land. I prefer to live in reality.
What is becoming very apparent is that it does not mean squat that 90+ percent of this country favor back ground checks and a limit on the magazine size for bullets. This is a simple case of politicians dictating what, and how, you think.
This comes down to a case of "Shame" on the politician. Now, if they get voted back into office come their next election then it changes to "Shame" on us! They are supposed to represent the people of their district and not the special interest groups.
Until that changes there is very little, if any, hope for this country. Also, I am not pointing the "Shame" finger at he the RNC or the NRA. Unfortunately, they just happened to be in the 15 Minute spot-lite
OK, I'm off my soap box for now.
90 percent of Americans don't even agree if the sun is shining yet you want to use a bogus poll to justify modifying a Bill of Rights provision?Especially since that law would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook? This is "reasonable" gun control.
Bogus Jack? 1st. It does nothing to remove your rights to have a gun. It does nothing to take your gun away from you. All it wants to do is keep the guns away from the crazies. What's wrong with that?
Any poll that says '90+% of the country (US)' is bogus. Look at the sample space or how many people were interviewed. The amount of data collected doesn't even amount to 5% of the entire population at most. It's funny how both sides use statistics.
Then 2bealive obviously must agree with the idea of a background check and ID to vote since it doesn't take anything away from the voter. All it does it keep the non-citizen from voting. What's wrong with that?
Btw, I'm not Jack. Jack Burton is Jack. I'm simply telling about the inaccuracy of statistics. How can you take a poll of 10,000 people and say 9,000 that voted 'yes' represents the views of the US population?
Al, there were less that 400 people queried in that poll. BTW, my dear wife is very glad that you are you and I am I. :-)
Haha, you just made a point of my statistic example way stronger. In regarding polls, I'd be impressed if they can even get 20,000 people to take it. But people are too dumb to realize the limitations of polls and statistics.
2bealive, you said it doesn't take away rights, but gun control does not prevent gun crimes either. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars and is a waste of time when we have more important issues in this country.
Background checks seem sensible to me for owning guns. But then I come from the United Kingdom and not the USA, and I don't really get why people need to own guns to defend themselves. (Some people have legitimate reasons for having guns, like farmers maybe, or possibly the police in some circumstances), but otherwise I don't think people should use guns.
I have zero problem with getting my background checked to purchase a gun because that has been the case since I have been purchasing guns. My question is, if someone had mental illness in their past, but they are getting treated for that illness, can they be denied ownership of a gun? I know someone that tried to commit suicide, was diagnosed with schizophrenia, yet after treatment was able to finish a residency and become a doctor.
I saw a comment on here that suggested to go so far as to look at childhood behavior. If that were the case, no one could buy a gun, but I am sure that is what they want.
The law will have to state which mental illness and which symptoms. Also, it will have state which disorders (if any) can be effectively treated. But schizophrenia pales in comparison to psychopathy and anti social personality disorder
I don't know how they can find out that info with doctor/patient confidentiality. Where would they go to get that info? Plus, what if this happened when the person was a minor. That info is locked.
We already require that those who are forced by the courts to seek mental treatment be banned from getting firearms. Also, certain mental disorders like schizophrenia can be treated, some like psychopathy cannot.
as usual, we are discussing apples and oranges when speaking of the right to bear arms.
no RIGHT to operate a motorized vehicle was written into the Constitution, because operating a motorized vehicle is a privilege, not a right.
however, the RIGHT to bear arms was written into the Constitution to ensure that the right to protect oneself from tyrannical politicians and government leaders was solidified for the citizens of this free nation.
as an everyday citizen, I do worry about those who believe that placing restrictions on law abiding citizens will curtail criminal actions by those citizens who do not follow the law.
when individuals are charged with driving a vehicle without a license, the government does not implement new laws to further restrict the law abiding citizens, so why is it necessary to do so for those who possess rifles and hand guns?
Because it's those that shoot kids that fall into that wide group. These checks will hopefully weed out some of them. You can't get all of them but at least get some!
The writers and sponsors of the ubc bill said outright that it would not have prevented ANY of the recent shootings. Why does 2bealive keep dancing in the blood of those children to get a useless law? And they wonder why gun owners don't trust them..
@ 2bealive - How about we weed out those who might use their vehicles as a means of committing homicide? That seems to fit with your logic....or does it?
Well, decades of licensing and registration has not "weeded out" a single person who later used their vehicle to kill people... yet you somehow believe it will magically work with firearms, eh.
It's bad for the NRA and its lobbyists, that is all. It makes complete sense otherwise.
The concern is that the information from background checks including who owns the guns will go into a Federal registry, and that should the government decide to confiscate all privately owned guns, they would be able to do so very easily, having a record of who owns them.
The Federal government has no Consitutional right to regulate firearms in the United States. I just does not exist. Only the states have that power. However the Federal government does many things which it has no Consitutional authority to do, and the fear among gun owners is that background checks by the Federal government are a prelude to gun confiscation.
Polls which show 90% of the public favor background checks may or may not be accurate. However, if the Federal government lacks the Consitutional authority to mandate background checks for gun ownership, then it does not matter what percentage of the public agrees with it. It would not be legal.
I am not real sure about 90% agreeing. Maybe 90% wouldn't mind background check, but that is very different than 90% wanting it. I think gun control people are misrepresenting that fact.
midown... the poll doesn't actually get around to telling people that there already ARE background checks on all guns sold by a dealer. Those "90 percent" are agreeing with a system we already have.
Getting into the "Federal" registry is almost a daily event. Pay taxes, you're in the registry, federal and State. No big deal. It's part of this country. As for confiscating guns. Not likely.
Tell that to the good folk of New York State where they are confiscating guns now.
New York taking guns is a joke. They tried to regulate soda size. NY is violating the 2nd Amendment and they won't hold water in the FED courts. NY is not the federal government. It's just another loud drum being banged.
Doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.
It all depends on what's 'Wrong'. 'Right' Jack?
You said it is "not likely" that guns will be confiscated. New York is now confiscating guns. I would say that puts you squarely in the category of "wrong." Perhaps you have another definition of it, eh.
Jack you have to keep your subjects together. The big stink is the Feds monkeying around with the 2nd amendment. No they are not. NY is stepping outside of the 2nd. Site me a name in the Feds that say the FEDS will take away your guns.
The fact is that US Citizens guns are being confiscated. Key words being US Citizens.
2be has what is referred to as "moving goalposts" in a discussion. When his argument is proven false, he suddenly changes it to a different argument and says, neener, neener, you didn't answer it. Does the gun owner really ~care~ WHO is doing it?
I do not oppose background checks, but that is not my top priority.
I think a waiting period to purchase the gun is necessary. The guy who faces a little inconvenience should remember that there are some who would walk into a gun store and go out and use it because he is mad at someone.
I think gun owners should be required to show that they know how to use the gun. THis could be a test administered when the first gun is purchased and be acceptable for say five years. Over time people reflexes do slow. The eyesight fails, etc. Can he still buy the gun--sure, it would just be recorded that his skill level is at a lower level than it was five years earlier.
This can be done at the state level, where the ability to restrict the use of guns is available. I would add that it would be good if your driver's license said you were a gun owner. It might keep some policemen from getting killed and help convenience store clerks be aware of who might be carrying a weapon.
I am through for the day. Respond if you wish, but I doubt if anyone gets all the way through this thread.
A lot of your suggestions are already successfully implemented in Australia.
I think a waiting period before a newspaper can publish a story is a must, because it gives time to allow the government to check the accuracy and thrust of the article, and to make sure the reporter isn't biased or mad when he wrote it.
Plus, journalist need to be licensed by the government and renewed every few years. This allows the government to check previous writings, and to discern a trend if the journalist is no longer able to do the job with accuracy and factual info.
Would that same restriction apply to hub writers, letters to the editor and gun magazine writers?
A recent court case out of the east coast declared a blogger a journalist protect by the state shield law, Do u think magazine writers are "journalists"? Perhaps at least 3 LTEs in one quarter qualifies. It can be negotiated in the petty details.
Mr. Burton a journalism degree does not make someone a journalist. A gun does not make you a marksman. Both can have impact on many people. There are restrictions on journalists. Some restrictions are needed on guns.
Perhaps you might try listing some of these prior restraint "restrictions" on journalists
Mr. Burton, what is your point. I said there were restraints on journalists. If a journalist does not agree with a prior restraint order, he can fight it in court. However, libel laws are set in stone. Illegally acquiring public document means jail.
libel laws are not prior restraint, neither are the gaining of documents. And no court is going to uphold a prior restraint law. Yet virtually every gun law u want is prior restraint. Punish the people who misuse a gun and leave the rest of us alone
I don't think there's anything wrong with background checks for taking on such a serious responsibility as owning a gun.
There's evidence from law enforcement that criminals do obtain guns from other people who bought them legitimately.
A popular counterargument to increased regulation of gun sales in general is that this will only effect law abiding citizens and people using guns for malicious intent will obtain guns regardless of whatever laws are in affect (background checks, waiting periods, etc.).
by Jo_Goldsmith115 years ago
Are we growing quiet to what happened 112 days ago? The local media believes we have become lost in the current news. Washington seems to be gearing up for another election cycle and trying to bring into...
by LauraGT5 years ago
A lot of people are saying that the congressmen (and women?) who voted against background checks are cowards, cowing down to NRA pressure. I don't believe they are cowards. I think you have to have a basic...
by Stacie L2 years ago
According to a Mic analysis of political spending data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA, —often cited as the most influential lobbying organization in the country — has spent a total of...
by lesliebyars5 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
by ahorseback7 months ago
"Ban the gun" becomes the slogan most yelled for weeks after the shooting anywhere , Those here at Hubpages , like all other mass media , jumps on the anti-gun bandwagon . Before...
by JeniferD8 years ago
I think we should. If it's one job that a mandatory background check should be required for, it's that of a public official. Why? Representation of the citizens is a sacred trust and that trust has...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.