Agreed overall. It doesn't matter how much money you pour in if all of the pertinent data/info is not going to make it into the check as my previous examples (terror watch lists/mentally unstable) show and if it doesn't include all of the private transactions.

 

Would gun owners and NRA and, ultimately, NRA's paid workers in Congress support all of that?

 

What percentage of mentally ill persons are actually diagnosed as being mentally ill? There are varying degrees of mental illness, so where does the line start and stop? Any type or degree of mental instability would keep one from purchasing? Even simple anxiety, minor depression? I would bet that most people who have a mental illness never get checked out and are never diagnosed.

Reminds me of the Virginia tech shooter. Wasn't he under mental care but was able to buy guns?

 

Yep.

 

And that's what, at least I think it is, a few of us have been trying to get at IMO. We need to look into the depth of these background checks. We need to look into how quickly these firearms are able to be acquired. Improvement is always possible.

 

This situation could've been avoided, or at the very least made a whole hell of a lot more difficult to pull off, had the process worked the way it should. Guys like this and the VaTech shooter should've never had legal access to firearms.

 

Would a longer waiting period, or a more extensive check have caught these things? I don't know, but to me it's worth it to find out.

I would have no problem with a more in depth background check for people who are purchasing their first weapon. The key is that it be a more in depth background check - not just some arbitrary waiting period!

 

If you're going to just make someone wait to get the weapon, and not do a more in depth background check, then it's pointless.

 

Fix the background check not just put in a waiting period.

 

Then, IMO, once you have passed the background check, you get a gun owner's license and you should be able to walk in and same day purchase whatever you want.

 

Renew every 4 years. If you don't let it expire, you can same day purchase anytime.

The biggest difference I can see in this argument is that the need for personal protection with a gun may only occur once in your life, while car and homeowners may occur multiple times in one's life.

 

The biggest concern for those who want to carry for protection is that one chance.....some aren't willing to hedge against the odds.

 

No one is taking away that ability. An assault rifle is not even a good home defense weapon.

I would have no problem with a more in depth background check for people who are purchasing their first weapon. The key is that it be a more in depth background check - not just some arbitrary waiting period!

 

If you're going to just make someone wait to get the weapon, and not do a more in depth background check, then it's pointless.

 

Fix the background check not just put in a waiting period.

 

Then, IMO, once you have passed the background check, you get a gun owner's license and you should be able to walk in and same day purchase whatever you want.

 

The small waiting period (whatever that may be) would allow for more in depth background checks. As of now I don't see anyway that's possible.

Because it is better to protect my myself immediately than wait. I have an uncle down in Tx that can attest to that.

 

If you have a sudden and immediate reason to need to protect yourself, maybe you should think about how you are living.

I don't know anyone that owns an AR-15 or AK. In my 46 years I've needed to use my car and house insurance several times ver the course of my life. I've never once needed or ever even been close to ceding in a situation where I've needed a gun for protection, let alone a military type weapon like an AK. And I've worked in inner city Philadelphia and NY, including a location that was robbed twice at gunpoint. Carrying a gun does not make me feel safer, and equating it to house or car insurance is a stretch. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong someday. If it works for you (or anyone else), and you are responsible, then by all means carry? But I strongly disagree with your assertion that not owning and carrying a gun is an irresponsible decision (equating it to other types of insurance) on my part.

 

You know I understand what you are saying. But think on this. Ask any off the fifty people in that night club if they wished they had a gun. You can't they are dead, murdered and that was probably the only time in their life they would have needed a firearm to try to defend themselves. They didn't have one and now they don't get the chance to change their minds. You will probably never have that situation. But what if? You can pay car insurance your whole life and never have an accident. But what if? Better to have than not to have.... It's your life. RIP to those poor souls in that club.

If you have a sudden and immediate reason to need to protect yourself, maybe you should think about how you are living.

 

Or maybe the criminal who tried to assault my uncle should think.

I would have no problem with a more in depth background check for people who are purchasing their first weapon. The key is that it be a more in depth background check - not just some arbitrary waiting period!

 

If you're going to just make someone wait to get the weapon, and not do a more in depth background check, then it's pointless.

 

Fix the background check not just put in a waiting period.

 

Then, IMO, once you have passed the background check, you get a gun owner's license and you should be able to walk in and same day purchase whatever you want.

 

I don't think anyone is really advocating a waiting period without something being done behind the scenes during that time.

 

As to your other point...A scenario to consider... A young man goes through the process and has no flags raised, passes with ease and gets his first weapon.

 

Fast forward 5 years, same guy who has recently been through a long, nasty, sometimes violent marriage, and had numerous domestics comes in and tries to purchase another gun...No update to the background check?

 

Or maybe there is something done already, I'm not sure. I guess my point is, that there has to be some way to update the background information because who we are at 22 is not who we are at 40.

If you have a sudden and immediate reason to need to protect yourself, maybe you should think about how you are living.

 

Tell that to domestic violence victims. It is more likely, those who would do us harm who need to think about how they are living.

Joe Bob that is packing heat at Holy Grail is NOT equipped to take out a terrorist in a crowed bar or night club. That's fantasy land IMO. I think you are giving the general public way too much credit to be calm and able to handle a situation they likely have zero training or experience in.

 

You dont know that, what if Joe bob is a former marine that has lots of training, or other branch of service, or former police officer?

I don't think anyone is really advocating a waiting period without something being done behind the scenes during that time.

 

 

I didn't add that to my initial post, which I should have. :thumb:

If you have a sudden and immediate reason to need to protect yourself, maybe you should think about how you are living.

 

Very arrogant reply.

Tell that to domestic violence victims. It is more likely, those who would do us harm who need to think about how they are living.

 

No doubt. But there are ways to remove yourself from the situation without needing a gun.

Very arrogant reply.

 

Arrogant or honest?

 

I realize there are exceptions to that general idea, but overall it's accurate. IMO, of course.