NOT Gun Control

[xandi]

How about if the gov could enforce the laws they have. If they can’t deal with what they have on the books why do they need more laws?
I think that maybe there could be something done to prevent things like this would be investigation/increased regulations on antidepressants

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here's the thing. The reason they ended up "selling" their guns to the government in Australia is because those guns were registered. Expanding background checks without strong safeguards for privacy does the same thing here.

And as even Onward noted, no system is perfect. There will be mass shooters in the future no matter what kind of expanded background check is passed. And WHEN that happens, the antis are going to use it to pursue an Australia-type solution. For that matter, look at Australia. For how proudly they trumpet their solution, they are still forcing more restrictions on legal gun owners. There is literally no restriction you could agree to where they won't be back tomorrow asking for more.

Every new restriction is always "a good first step" as if the previous thousand steps never happened.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

Guys, it ain't an all or nothing. A first step is a first step. Do I think a new and improved background check that breaks some HIPAA laws is going to fix things? Er, I don't think so. Do I think it's better than some drivel about "now is not the time....blah...blah...blah...it's a mental health issue...". Really? How about some solutions?

What is the solution to the imperfectability of man? "“Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption, and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something." Several people through history thought they had answers. Solving man's imperfectability with state action has a poor track record.

The kind of malice that drives one to murder is a very dark thing. It's also relatively rare. The kind of twist that has someone shooting up a school is quite rare. It may sound too easy to say that hard cases make bad law; but you should ask what the purpose of the law is. Is it to reduce risk to zero, or is it to govern men's acts so as not to invite or condone problems unnecessarily? People are more likely to be struck by lightning or win the Lotto than be shot while at school. Is it smart to restrict legal access to arms for 300 million americans over this?

[Colorado Redneck]

Meanwhile, nothing gets done that helps to prevent this kind of carnage. Some say nothing can be done, so lets just accept the fact that innocent kids or church worshipers or people at work are going to get killed from time to time. That way they won't be incovenienced if they want to buy a gun. We all know our right to own any gun we want supercedes other peoples right to live.

I sure as hell don't mind submitting a few bucks and some time to pass a background check, if all gun transactions are required to do so. Mothers mourning the needless death of kids in school, just because some gun people don't want to give one more inch is disgusting. We are supposedly all in this together, but there seem to be a number of people that are willing to let selfish motives override doing anything to improve the current trend in mass shootings.

One more thing that galls me is the inability of legislators to provide necessary legislation AND funding to improve mental health care. The knee jerk reaction is always some platitide about goverment waste and already being over taxed.

2 months from now, this school massacre will be in the rear view mirror, and "out of sight, out of mind" will be back in play. This s truly sad.

[5whiskey]

The kind of twist that has someone shooting up a school is quite rare. It may sound too easy to say that hard cases make bad law; but you should ask what the purpose of the law is. Is it to reduce risk to zero, or is it to govern men's acts so as not to invite or condone problems unnecessarily? People are more likely to be struck by lightning or win the Lotto than be shot while at school. Is it smart to restrict legal access to arms for 300 million americans over this?

To an older, seasoned, reasoned, and emotionally intelligent person this statement makes perfect sense. The ones protesting over gun laws right now do not have these characteristics. Unfortunately, reasoned responses do not sit well when people demand that something be done after a very bad rash of mass shootings. Guys we cannot argue against the fact that it has been pretty rough since the Sandy Hook shooting. What we can do, however, is point that there have been many cases where authorities have failed by not following up on tips or leads or did not report data to the NICS database accurately. This shooting, Texas, Orlando Nightclub, Charleston, and Boston marathon bombing were examples of system failures. Not necessarily because it counters the gun control argument, but because system failures is something that can be addressed without any new bickering and should save lives.

[44 AMP]

Mothers mourning the needless death of kids in school, just because some gun people don't want to give one more inch is disgusting.

I agree, its disgusting. Also disgusting is blaming people, MILLIONS of people, who did NOTHING WRONG, BROKE NO LAWS, and had NOTHING to do with the crime.

Disgusting that INNOCENT people are considered to blame, just because they own guns, and don't believe that they should be punished OR "inconvenienced" because someone ELSE broke the law.

there seem to be a number of people that are willing to let selfish motives override doing anything to improve the current trend in mass shootings.

Yes, selfish of us not to blindly accept further restrictions and fees, with NOTHING but a PROMISE of it doing anything to improve the current trend in mass shootings.

"Better background checks will fix the problem" is just as honest a statement as "this agreement ensures that we will have peace in our time!"

The people saying it absolutely believe it, but history always shows them to be wrong in the end.

[Colorado Redneck]

44Amp,
Thanks for your response.

Who would be the millions of people being punished? The ones that are alive and might be required to pass a screening of some type that would help deter potential killers? That isn't a rational point, rather an emotionally loaded response. Passing a screening is a lot more survivable and less punishing than getting shot in church, or at work, or in a classroom. I hear more support for the current tactic of doing nothing, because doing something might be an inconvenience. I am a gun guy. But I am also against rationalizing doing nothing, as deranged killers continue to shoot people with guns.

There are many actions taken that are not guaranteed to achieve intended objectives. Farmers plant crops every year with no guarantee they will get to harvest. No guarantee of price for said crop. This is only an example, not meant to be an exact corollary to the idea of better screening of potential gun buyers. We can either do nothing, or try to do something to decrease idiots shooting our neighbors, coworkers and kids. By doing nothing I contend people are implicitly condoning these incidents .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

Background checks from our HR dept gets pretty detailed. Our HR looks at credit reports, criminal, civil, & even arrest records at the State level. It doesn't cost $200. IIRC, it runs around $50.

Really? Fifty bucks to look at all that? Your company must not pay your HR people very well. And to that you want to add: social media, medical records, restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, and lawsuits -- and have it cost $20. So you expect to more than double the work, and have it cost 40 percent as much.

What does "economies of scale" have to do with it? This isn't manufacturing widgets, where the cost of raw materials per unit is lower when purchased in large quantities. This is background investigations -- every single one is unique. There ARE NO economies of scale for something like that.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Meanwhile, nothing gets done that helps to prevent this kind of carnage. Some say nothing can be done, so lets just accept the fact that innocent kids or church worshipers or people at work are going to get killed from time to time. That way they won't be incovenienced if they want to buy a gun. We all know our right to own any gun we want supercedes other peoples right to live.

The problem is that everyone wants to do something. That inevitably leads to hurried actions that don't really address the problem. But the usual suspects can sit back at election time and point to a barrel full of new laws that won't make a difference (other than to further inconvenience honest people) and proudly proclaim, "I did something."

Case in point: In the immediate aftermath of the sandy Hook shooting, the town next to where I live (and where I lived as a child) announced that they were installing a new, upgraded security system in their elementary school. I'm in a related profession, so I was naturally curious as to what they were going to install. So I asked. Their brilliant new solution was exactly the same as the system that failed to stop the sandy Hook shooter. EXACTLY the same.

I know a young man who works as a locksmith. I used to see him at the shooting range most Friday evenings. We were discussing school security after Sandy Hook. He knows the high school in my town -- he said he goes there frequently on service calls. He said their security is a joke -- when he goes, he doesn't pass through the front door and sign in. He goes around to the shop door in the back, which is usually open, and walks in. If it's not open, he said he just knocks, and someone always opens it.

My daughter for awhile attended a Catholic parochial high school. Their front doors are solid -- no glass. The doors are locked once the kids have entered and the school day starts. Visitors have to press a doorbell and be buzzed in. But ... the buzzer is in the main office, which is some distance remote from the entrance doors. They don't have line of sight (and there's no glass anyway) and they don't have cameras. So the women in the office have NO IDEA who is ringing the doorbell -- they hear the bell, and buzz him in. It could be Jack the Ripper and Atilla the Hun -- they would have no way of knowing.

A friend who lives across town is a fellow NRA instructor. He has a daughter in the elementary school. He told me last night that he discussed security at the school with the SRO for ten minutes, and now that he knows their protocol he would have no trouble entering the school and shooting it up. Which is just what happened in Florida. It's a multi-building campus, so the building doors aren't locked. There's a wall/fence sround the property, with locked gates. Except that 20 minutes before dismissal they open all the gates. DUH!! The shooter was a student there -- he knew that, so he just waited until 20 minutes before dismissal, and walked right in.

How did the Sandy Hook shooter get in? The doors were locked. Oh ... the doors were also glass -- so he shot out a pane of glass and walked in. The high school in my town recently did a major renovation and addition. I was involved in the plan review. I was upset because they were supposed to be designing safer spaces, to protect against shooters. So I was astonished to see that the new wings had floor to ceiling glass sidelights flanking the classroom doors. Yet they were being very careful to specify the newest, most secure locks for the doors. I pointed out that those expensive new locks were useless, because a shooter could just shoot out the sidelight, then reach around and open the door. (Per fire codes, classroom doors MUST always open from the classroom side, even when locked on the corridor side.) So the building committee went back and asked the architects about that, and the architect's response was, "We like it." So it got built with the glass sidelights.

If there's any one new law that would help prevent, or at least minimize, this type of incident in the future, it would be a law to make being stupid illegal.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Colorado redneck, which of the last 20 or so mass shooters, including this one, didn’t pass the NICS check?

Also, I greatly resent the implication that because I am not willing to agree to the solution you propose that I am in any way comolicit in murder. You argue against an emotionally loaded response when your opening gambit is to accuse all who disagree with you of complicty in the murder of children?

[JohnKSa]

Mothers mourning the needless death of kids in school, just because some gun people don't want to give one more inch is disgusting.

There are needless deaths of kids all the time due to automobile accidents, boating accidents, sports accidents, trampolines, swimming, alcohol use, tobacco use, improper medical care, bicycles, etc.

Society tolerates these deaths because people are unwilling to accept further restrictions on motor vehicles, sports, alcohol use, tobacco use and various types of potentially dangerous recreation.

Let's not pretend that firearms are some sort of unique problem and that firearm owners are somehow unique. The fact is that there are many far less useful activities and things which result in needless deaths of children--things which society not only explicitly tolerates, but even embraces.

I'll concede that gun people are disgusting because they don't want to give up any more rights or take on any more restrictions if you'll agree that alcohol people, tobacco people, car people, boat people, swimming pool people, trampoline people, skateboard people, equestrian sports people, bicycle people, etc., etc., etc., are also equally disgusting.

Furthermore, if you are not personally willing to give up rights and take on additional restrictions in all of those areas (including the ones not listed explicitly), I "contend you are implicitly condoning" any needless deaths of children that result from them.

We are supposedly all in this together, but there seem to be a number of people that are willing to let selfish motives override doing anything to improve the current trend in mass shootings.

That's crap.

1. No one is saying that nothing should be done to reduce mass shootings. A lot of people are saying that there are already enough restrictions on guns and gun rights and that other solutions need to be explored.

2. Preserving rights is not a "selfish motive". Rights are precious and once they are given over to the government, retrieving them is nearly impossible.

3. We ARE all in this together, but there seem to be a number of people who, so they can feel good about doing SOMETHING, wish to trade away not only their rights, not only the rights of millions of others who want to retain their rights, but also the rights of millions of people who can't vote yet and many millions more that aren't even born yet. That's what I call selfish.

I hear more support for the current tactic of doing nothing, because doing something might be an inconvenience.

This is a strawman. The false pretense that the only thing that can be done to reduce mass shootings is to further restrict gun rights lets you also pretend that the people who are against that particular solution want to do nothing about mass shootings.

The fact that I am against giving out tickets to people who drive cars that can potentially break the speed limit, or to people an LEO believes might break the speed limit in the future, doesn't mean that I'm for doing nothing to enforce the speed limits. It's just that I think that particular solution isn't reasonable and that other approaches need to be employed.

The fact that I am against further infringements on the rights of millions of people because a very few people use firearms for mass shootings doesn't mean I think nothing should be done about mass shootings. It's just that I think that particular solution isn't reasonable and that other approaches need to be employed.

Passing a screening is a lot more survivable and less punishing than getting shot in church, or at work, or in a classroom.

This is a non-argument.

Requiring that every gun purchase must come with a public whipping for the buyer is "a lot more survivable and less punishing than getting shot in church, or at work, or in a classroom" but that doesn't make it reasonable, and it doesn't mean it's not punishment.

The fact that a particular punishment might be relatively mild compared to getting shot doesn't automatically make it ok to mete it out across the board to millions of people who have not and will never commit any crime.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Here's the thing. The reason they ended up "selling" their guns to the government in Australia is because those guns were registered. Expanding background checks without strong safeguards for privacy does the same thing here.

And as even Onward noted, no system is perfect. There will be mass shooters in the future no matter what kind of expanded background check is passed. And WHEN that happens, the antis are going to use it to pursue an Australia-type solution. For that matter, look at Australia. For how proudly they trumpet their solution, they are still forcing more restrictions on legal gun owners. There is literally no restriction you could agree to where they won't be back tomorrow asking for more.

Every new restriction is always "a good first step" as if the previous thousand steps never happened.

Well said, but I'd point out that the antigun crowd isn't waiting for the next mass shooting to pursue an Australian-style model. They're pursuing it now.

Your statement about "good first steps" is dead on, though. If memory serves (& I'd have to go do some internet digging to confirm this, TBH), someone from The Antigun Regulars (Schumer or Bloomberg?) introduced a new handgun restriction bill into Congress about a week after the AWB passed. IOW, a deal had been reached, but the antigunners immediately came back, looking for more.

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Meanwhile, nothing gets done that helps to prevent this kind of carnage. Some say nothing can be done, so lets just accept the fact that innocent kids or church worshipers or people at work are going to get killed from time to time. That way they won't be incovenienced if they want to buy a gun. We all know our right to own any gun we want supercedes other peoples right to live. . . . .

That rhetoric is exactly the rhetoric used by the antigunners. If you consider further restrictions on fundamental, individual constitutional rights to be a matter of "convenience," then you have already conceded. I, for one, will not attempt to appease the antigunners.

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

I sure as hell don't mind submitting a few bucks and some time to pass a background check, if all gun transactions are required to do so.

Then do so. For that matter, you can do background checks now. There is nothing in the world stopping you from requiring that each and every firearms transfer in which you are involved be performed by way of an FFL. You don't have to wait until "all gun transactions are required to" use a background check.

In fact, I'm curious: Do you do background checks on all of your gun transfers now? If so, do you do so because your state requires it?

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Mothers mourning the needless death of kids in school, just because some gun people don't want to give one more inch is disgusting. We are supposedly all in this together, but there seem to be a number of people that are willing to let selfish motives override doing anything to improve the current trend in mass shootings. . . .

The slaughter of innocents is disgusting. It is always disgusting. The call for increased gun control, which always winds up immediately after a high-profile shooting, routinely attempts to further strip the rights of millions of people who had not a thing in the world to do with the shooting. Gun owners have had the RKBA narrowed over, and over, and over. You may find it disgusting that I am unwilling to further sacrifice my constitutional rights, and those of future generations. That's your right, too.

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

Who would be the millions of people being punished? The ones that are alive and might be required to pass a screening of some type that would help deter potential killers? That isn't a rational point, rather an emotionally loaded response. Passing a screening is a lot more survivable and less punishing than getting shot in church, or at work, or in a classroom. . . .

You complain about the "emotionally loaded response" and then finish with "[p]assing a screening is a lot more survivable and less punishing than getting shot . . .?" That's actually kind of funny in its irony. However, why are we comparison shopping on which one is more survivable? Even if further background checks were required, we'd still have mass shooters. As Bartholomew Roberts inquired, which one of the past 20 or so mass shooters didn't pass a background check? Exactly what expansions to the background check system would you propose that you think would improve keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys?

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

I hear more support for the current tactic of doing nothing, because doing something might be an inconvenience. I am a gun guy. But I am also against rationalizing doing nothing, as deranged killers continue to shoot people with guns. . . . .

As we so often hear in ads from organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety, "I am a hunter, but . . . "

There may be some in the "not one more inch" crowd have taken that position as a matter of convenience, but I suspect that they're rare. I, for one, simply refuse to sacrifice my constitutional rights. Any of them. Period.

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

. . . By doing nothing I contend people are implicitly condoning these incidents .

And that's a ridiculous contention. Refusal to roll over and give my rights up to popular outrage isn't "doing nothing." And it certainly isn't condoning mass shootings.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Colorado Redneck

I sure as hell don't mind submitting a few bucks and some time to pass a background check, if all gun transactions are required to do so. Mothers mourning the needless death of kids in school, just because some gun people don't want to give one more inch is disgusting. We are supposedly all in this together, but there seem to be a number of people that are willing to let selfish motives override doing anything to improve the current trend in mass shootings.

There is some evidence to suggest that news of events like Columbine and Newtown prompt the unbalanced to ape those murders and go on killing sprees of their own.

The solution is so clear now: We need to control all news media, including person to person communication. Let's all unite against the selfishness of people who think their right to speak without government permission supercedes an innocent child's right to live another day and be hugged by his loving mother. Let's do the decent thing and rally to suspend the First Amendment. Some will complain that they have no recourse to speak when the right is denied; those whiners should be shamed socially.

It's for the children.

Sound reasonable?

[RETG]

Biggest problem is that HIPA regs stop your medical history from being disclosed and that includes to INSURANCE companies. Info can only be disclosed for your health such as between doctors, nurses, etc., but they are required to keep it confidential. A relative cannot obtain it unless they are legally responsible for your health (parents, power of attorney or written approval of the patient, etc.).

An insurance company paying a claim will have a record of your medical problem for that payment, but they CANNOT disclose it to another person or insurance company without violating HIPA regs.

Only way to get it into public record would be for the person applying for the background check to also sign allowing for a disclosure of their medical records.

If a person has been ruled by a court to be mentally incompetent, then that is now a court record and if unsealed, they it should be made available for a background check.

But you are on a slippery slope. The social security administration, during the Obama years, passed a regulation that if someone was on social security and they appointed another person to handle their financial matters they could (and were) reported to the NICS as being mentally incompetent to own a gun. This was without any due process of law, the person might not have been notified, there was no legal process to find out why the person transferred the financial ability to a third person.
In some cases it might be due to the person having a decease that would hinder their owning of a weapon, but in most cases it was just due to the person didn't want to do it anymore. They might have gone on a long trip and left a son/daughter, etc. in charge of their bills while they were gone.

So, even though I support someone with mental problems from having a gun, make sure those are legit and that the problem is due to a true mental condition.

[Onward Allusion]

Really? Fifty bucks to look at all that? Your company must not pay your HR people very well. And to that you want to add: social media, medical records, restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, and lawsuits -- and have it cost $20. So you expect to more than double the work, and have it cost 40 percent as much.

Please do some research on the cost and brevity of background checks available commercially. No need to toss insults about my workplace. It's actually a national brand that has ~1B in sales and parent company is close to 40B. I run IT for 'em so I do know a thing or two on what data is available legally and at what cost.

BTW, all the social media stuff is available via AI that scour the platforms. Ever heard of OpenText's Qfiniti Explore? Same underlying technology that was used by the NSA. How do you think companies are able to respond to complaints posted in social media or monitor for competitive intelligence?

[Onward Allusion]

The gist I got from this thread is that LE is failing the current background check system either by not following up on complaints or not diving deep enough. So, what is the fix? More funding to LE? State agencies devoted to nothing but background checks and complaints?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Please do some research on the cost and brevity of background checks available commercially.

You keep arguing over the feasibility of the project when you haven't yet explained how the project helps identify a prohibited person in a way the current system doesn't. Give me an example of how the system you use at work better identifies a prohibited person compared to NICS.

[Onward Allusion]

Most of the shooters were NOT prohibited persons. They were friggin nut jobs.

#1 - Technology that flags publicly available social media activity; feeds info to a human for review; in the event of red flags, info is forwarded to local LE for deeper dive and/or informs local LE. Extended time period to have the above work through the process.

#2 - We have FICO scores for credit, why not have a similar score for "community standing"? You get a complaint and a visit by police to your home, -CS score; get a DUI, -CS score; volunteer at homeless shelter +CS score; pay your bills on time +CS; BTW, all of this is PUBLIC info - some public records, some on social media.

Not saying that the preceding would prevent anyone from purchasing a gun, just a flag for additional info.

BTW, face to face gun transactions (private sales) need to go through some type of background check. I know for a fact that many of the folks here believe that, if not only as CYA measure or personal peace of mind. Nine States already have some type of BC's for private sales.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The gist I got from this thread is that LE is failing the current background check system either by not following up on complaints or not diving deep enough. So, what is the fix? More funding to LE? State agencies devoted to nothing but background checks and complaints?

The ways in which the current background check fails are legion.

The VA Tech shooter was adjudicated mentally defiective in a Virginia state court and diverted into a treatment program. However, different federal courts and the state of Virginia all disagree on what the definition "adjudicated mentally deficient" means. So, the state did not report him to NICS; because under state law, he was not a prohibited person, though he might have been under federal law and was under the definition ATF used.

The "Trainwreck" shooter was a flat-out prohibited person by every measure of state and federal law. The state simply never reported his conviction to NICS - which by the way, the states are under no legal obligation to do.

The Sutherland Springs shooter was also not reported to NICS, even though as a federal agency, the DoD was under a legal obligation to do so.

In this case, the cops of been out to the house 39 times - including where the shooter assaulted his mother with a vacuum cleaner. Misdemeanor domestic violence convictions make you a prohibited person. And it looks like there were a few chances to bring those kinds of charges against this shooter. For whatever reason, it looks like those charges were not brought, or not prosecuted, or not reported to NICS if charged and prosecuted (possibly because of juvenile privacy laws which also prevent some offenses from being reported to NICS).

And of course, when NICS does stop someone from purchasing a firearm, we do nothing at all to stop them from trying again. In 2010, NICS referred 76,142 denials to ATF. ATF referred 4,732 of those denials to field offices for investigation. Of those, 509 were not prohibited people. For various reasons, 1,923 cases were further investigated and 62 cases were referred for prosecution.

In addition to the low rate of investigating denials, NICS wrongly approved 1,923 purchases (that ATF followed up on anyway) and ATF retrieved 1,164 firearms in connection.

Of the 62 cases referred for prosecution: 18 were declined by a prosecutor, 13 were dismissed via plea agreement, 13 pled guilty and 12 were still pending when the study was published.

76,142 denials. 1,164 firearms retrieved. 26 guilty pleas.

Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

That's 62 cases brought out of 76,142 denials. Expanding background checks to private sales doesn't promise to change any of that. It is just going to be 62 cases out of xxx,xxx denials. In the meantime, about 40% of the people who NICS wrongly approved for firearms purchase and got assigned an ATF investigation, kept the firearm and appear not to have been prosecuted either.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

Most of the shooters were NOT prohibited persons. They were friggin nut jobs.

So, are you saying they should have been taken into a court, adjudicated mentally defective by a judge and added to NICS as a prohibited person? Or are you saying that the category of prohibited people should be expanded based on the criteria you outlined?

BTW, face to face gun transactions (private sales) need to go through some type of background check.

No, they don't. But if you believe they do, you'd do your best to focus on addressing gun owners' very justified privacy concerns about that data being used for confiscation. Because that's the rock that is going to sink any attempt at more background checks.

[Onward Allusion]

I'm saying the red flags should have delayed the approval process to have an additional review performed. Upon additional review (whatever it may be - probably will require interviews with people - dunno), if warranted, the individual should be taken to court. I am for due process.

I personally think that in some of the previous cases, the process would have been a wake-up call to the nut job. Sometimes that's all that's needed; a visit from LE and being scrutinized. Sometimes, not.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm saying the red flags should have delayed the approval process for additional review. Upon additional review (whatever it may be - probably will require interviews with people - dunno), if warranted, the individual should be take to court. I am for due process.

As it currently works, NICS is just an up-down system. You fill out a form 4473. If your state uses the NICS system and not their own state system, AND you do not have a NICS-compliant CHL, your identifying information is compared to the NICS database. If you are in there, you are denied. If you aren't, you get passed.

If it looks like it might be you in there; but maybe it is someone else - or the information reported to NICS is inconclusive "misdemeanor assault conviction" that might or might not be disqualifying domestic violence, you get delayed for three days. All NICS will do then is ask the reporting agency to clarify. If the reporting agency doesn't clarify for whatever reason within three days, you can purchase the firearm.

There is currently no mechanism to report "this guy is crazy as a loon; but not a prohibited person." That has to be done long before NICS gets involved. There were plenty of opportunities to do that here. They just weren't done. Likely because no prosecutor or cop wanted to give the electronic mark of Cain to a young teenager making stupid decisions and forever effect his future opportunities.

As you can see, the ATF barely manages to investigate NICS denials. The FBI runs NICS with even fewer resources. Having them do the kinds of follow-ups you suggest once the NICS process is initiated seems impractical even if you think the general idea is valid.

[adamBomb]

Wow, I've been called many things before but never a gun control advocate.

And this is why nothing is done...and this is probably why the only thing thats ever going to pass is going to be drastic. You think budging an inch means giving up everything. I think not budging is going to lead to one drastic measure. The division in our nation is just begging for it.

Our nation of people on the right and left are so extreme that they only present extreme options. We have these lables, right, left, dem, republican, liberal, conservative, etc....Can't someone just be out there to solve problems? Trump claimed he was going to drain the swamp and I was super excited by this message however all I see are lobbyists in washington (trump has multiple working for him right now - so yea great swamp draining). We need to boot everyone, get rid of these parties, and work together to find solutions to each problem. Stop labeling yourself as right or left. Stop calling people right or left. That is just part of the problem - we aren't on sides.

Now, do we need gun control? Who knows. I think any kind of mental health screen, training, etc could of probably stopped this one incident. Heck 20 things could of stopped this, especially the FBI. I don't think any could of stopped the guy in vegas though. People are crazy and we can't really stop crazy except when someone is clearly crazy we shouldn't be giving them access to firearms. I mean we have people identified by the FBI as ISIS sympathisers and they can buy guns perfectly fine. So we do have some issues. I am not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

I am for fixing our current background check system and we agree to disagree.

The current system can be "fixed" without making ANY changes in the laws. All that's required is for people to do their jobs. Look at recent mass shootings. How many involve failures of "the system" to flag people who should not have had guns?

• Fort Hood - the Jihadist Major had sent messages to the FBI that should have flagged him as a terrorist threat. No action.
• The Texas church massacre - The shooter should have been prohibited from buying guns, but the Air Force didn't report him to NICS so he passed multiple background checks.
• The Pulse Club - the shooter was investigated by the FBI more than once, yet they decided he wasn't a threat.
• Dylan Roof, the other recent church shooter - also should have been prohibited from buying guns, but somebody didn't do their job and he sailed through NICS.

There are more: https://www.westernjournal.com/list-...iled-stop/?utm

Before you start trying to expand the system, maybe you should focus on fixing the system we already have.

[s3779m]

Bit by bit we have been having our rights slowly taken away. We all know the saying,"if gun laws worked, Chicago would be a safe haven". Truth of the matter, as long as we look towards the government to provide for our safety, we will always have to give up rights. Sad to say, but giving up rights does not make anyone safer. Gun free zones only take away YOUR right to defend yourself and others. What were we thinking when we made places "gun free" and expected criminals to obey? As a society we go into businesses with our children and PEOPLE ARE ARMED and nobody goes crazy, there is no panic from knowing people have guns on them. So why are there gun free zones? Want to solve the problem, how about we stop talking about taking away rights and start talking about giving them back. I have no problem with teachers or coaches being armed. If we trust them with our children and grandchildren, then we should be able to trust them with defending them and their self.