(Feb 1, 2019 04:09 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't watch the entire video, but sounds reasonable, background checks. Sounds necessary. I agree (with you, Syne) about late term abortions, but that is a separate topic. I won't vote for anyone who thinks that's a ''woman's right.'' But, in terms of background checks, there should be a stringent process of looking at a person's references, similar to being considered for a job. It seems people need to jump through more hoops to gain employment, than to legally purchase a gun.
Having said this though, if someone is seeking to harm others, whether at a school or in a crowded mall, he/she will find a way to find a weapon that will bring about the most destruction. Terrorists have used cars and planes. They also use homemade bombs. A not-so-fun fact - Most rapists don't use guns as their weapon of choice to subdue their victims. So, are guns the problem, or are they simply falling into the wrong hands? If it's mainly the latter, then improving the background check process is necessary.
I agree, it does "sound" reasonable. But it comes from people who either don't understand or refuse to accept the facts. In the real world, people wanting to get guns illegally will always find ways around any such laws, or like you say, seek other options (that a good guy with a gun can't readily counter). They either steal one or just have to find someone desperate enough to take twice the price for a gun in order to forego doing any "universal background check". But the problem of background checks is so far downstream from the actual problems that it's pointless. First, reporting to the national background check system (NICS) is spotty, including from the military...which might have stopped the
Sutherland Springs massacre. So what dearly-held Democrat funding are they willing to give up to improve the NICS reporting and pay for free background checks for private gun sales? But even if they do, many mass shooters, like
the Vegas shooter, had no record that would have barred them from buying guns in the first place.
A new FBI study of active shooters over a 13-year period reveals that the majority used legally purchased guns, have a history with the site that they attack, and contrary to popular belief do not have a long history of mental health issues.
...
Lanza [Sandy Hook] fits many of the categories — he attended elementary school at Sandy Hook, legally owned the guns used in the attack and had no criminal history.
- http://www.govtech.com/em/safety/FBI-Rep...Spree.html
So what background check can catch someone suddenly snapping without many warning signs making their way to official records?
Pre-crime?
Even if everyone voluntarily cooperated with private sale background checks, even though there is currently a fee to do so and no way to enforce it, most mass shootings would not have been stopped. They wouldn't even have had to look for an alternative means of attack. So what "sounds necessary" has already been shown not to work. And Democrats are going to give up funding some other pet cause of theirs for zero results? And when that doesn't work, they can only say we need to get rid of guns...through confiscation. Which leads us to the only way you can enforce universal background checks...a nationwide gun registry. No one is going to help gun-grabbers know where to look.
And all this doesn't even touch how the federal government can force or even have oversight on states reporting to NICS.
The simple fact is that mass shooters can kill many people before police even have time to respond. The ONLY thing that can remedy that is more good people with guns, including armed women fending off rapists. Everything else is some idealistic, pacifist pie in the sky. The real world doesn't respond to ideals.
