Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FACT: Not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by a background check or expanded background check. In fact, all guns used in recent attacks were purchased legally. With one notable exception of course: The FBI failed to stop the Charleston shooter through the background check process already in place. THE FBI!
Now, Barack is poised to expand background checks to higher volume gun dealers, which will be 100% meaningless. Obviously.
Do liberals and Democrats understand this? If not, why not?
Thank you, though the link does seem to show that most of them could have been prevented if we denied those with a criminal background and/or mental health issues. So basically the current background check doesn't go far enough.
Though I doubt any gun nuts care about that....case in point will probably be all the posts that follow this one....
Thank you, though the link does seem to show that most of them could have been prevented if we denied those with a criminal background and/or mental health issues. So basically the current background check doesn't go far enough.
Though I doubt any gun nuts care about that....case in point will probably be all the posts that follow this one....
It's not a matter of the depth of the background check. It's a matter of legality. Current law does not prevent a person who has not been ordered by a court to a mental institution to purchase a gun. Also, misdemeanor offenses do not result in a prohibition on gun ownership.
That's why Barack's proposed expansion of background checks are merely symbolic. A solution looking for a problem....that's all this is.
Thank you, though the link does seem to show that most of them could have been prevented if we denied those with a criminal background and/or mental health issues. So basically the current background check doesn't go far enough.
Though I doubt any gun nuts care about that....case in point will probably be all the posts that follow this one....
And I doubt those on the left are willing to do what it takes to eliminate people with mental health issues from getting guns. That would mean forcing shrinks to report patients who pose a threat. I would even advocate holding shrinks responsible for their patients actions, if the shrink failed to report the threat.
It's not a matter of the depth of the background check. It's a matter of legality. Current law does not prevent a person who has not been ordered by a court to a mental institution to purchase a gun. Also, misdemeanor offenses do not result in a prohibition on gun ownership.
That's why Barack's proposed expansion of background checks are merely symbolic.
Maybe it should, and yes, Obama's expansion on background checks are symbolic.
FACT: Not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by a background check or expanded background check. In fact, all guns used in recent attacks were purchased legally. With one notable exception of course: The FBI failed to stop the Charleston shooter through the background check process already in place. THE FBI!
Now, Barack is poised to expand background checks to higher volume gun dealers, which will be 100% meaningless. Obviously.
Do liberals and Democrats understand this? If not, why not?
Sure but only because you are only seeing cases where the system failed.
What you don't look at is how many mass shootings did not occur because the criminal or mentally ill person was not able to obtain a gun for some reason. Whether it is because of government screening or simply people practicing proper gun safety like locking their guns up in a secure location. In other words the shooting never happens so you do not hear about it.
Its hard to judge fairly when you only hear about failures and not success.
The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that rational people, regardless of their views on guns in general, would rather keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal histories and/or documented mental health problems. Can we at least agree on that?
It seems to me that we can either (1) discontinue background checks for gun purchases, since they don't appear to be working as effectively as we would like, or (2) fix the problems in background checks that allowed such individuals legal access to guns.
Let's fix the background checks, expand them, and eliminate the loopholes. Let's change the laws that are a hindrance rather than a help to effective background checks. If the background checks aren't working now, let's make the changes needed to make them work. Let's keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.