Law enforcement should look into all accusations made to them.

 

That's not what we are talking about.

 

We are talking about putting unfounded accusations on background checks.

 

If they have already been investigated and are unfounded or no charges were filed, I don't believe it should go on a background check.

 

So a person has 15 incident reports filed that included him/her and domestic violence of some sort, no arrests ever made. You believe there's no way we can put that on a background check?

I think that is all the dealer sees and I don't think there is a background check company. I believe it's an FBI database or something like that. I could be wrong though.

 

I've always been under the impression that when we run background checks before hiring someone, it's with a company. Now maybe they're just a go-between that gets the info from the database, I don't know.

Yeah, because I said let's throw our hands up. Okay, you tell me how Dicks not selling them will stop what's happening. I'll wait...

 

Let me restate. And I'm not specifically zeroing in on you. One of the common arguments brought forth against any gun control measure, is the futility of it all. Certainly, it's a frustrating problem for both sides. The fear of the pro gun folks that they are being labeled and that ultimately their rights to own guns will be severely restricted. And the fears that the other side has about the continuation and further escalation of these types of mass shooting crimes and continued gun violence that is so out of step with the rest of the world. Again, I believe both sides need to get away from the all or nothing attitudes.

 

As to how Dick's move might help? I've said several times, how ultimately, I don't know how much of an impact this move might have. What it does do is possibly make it just a little bit more difficult to obtain these types of guns, that seem to be favored in this type of crime. I understand that it's truly just a small, tiny drop in the bucket at the very best. But let's keep talking and working towards a better solution. Doing nothing isn't helping right now either. And I know it doesn't answer your question, but how does this move hurt?

"We are taking strides to make sure guns don't get into the hands of people who have no business having them. While we cannot control other means in which these weapons are acquired, we can control what happens in our stores."

 

That was pretty easy.

 

It didn't answer my question. How will it stop the next one? Answer: It won't.

So a person has 15 incident reports filed that included him/her and domestic violence of some sort, no arrests ever made. You believe there's no way we can put that on a background check?

 

If there isn't enough to arrest someone, why should it go on a background check? What good will it do?

Another thing that needs to be done is that everyone that gets denied, should be charged with a Federal Crime. Before a dealer calls the background service they verify the purchaser has answered all questions correctly, which means the purchaser has claimed to have nothing that would prohibit them from purchasing a firearm. If they then fail tha background check then it means that must have lied on the form which in and of itself is a Federal Crime. ATF has prosecuted a handful of these cases over the years...it would be a much bigger deterrent to people lying and trying to buy a firearm if they were prosecuted for lying on the form as they should be.

Let me restate. And I'm not specifically zeroing in on you. One of the common arguments brought forth against any gun control measure, is the futility of it all. Certainly, it's a frustrating problem for both sides. The fear of the pro gun folks that they are being labeled and that ultimately their rights to own guns will be severely restricted. And the fears that the other side has about the continuation and further escalation of these types of mass shooting crimes and continued gun violence that is so out of step with the rest of the world. Again, I believe both sides need to get away from the all or nothing attitudes.

 

As to how Dick's move might help? I've said several times, how ultimately, I don't know how much of an impact this move might have. What it does do is possibly make it just a little bit more difficult to obtain these types of guns, that seem to be favored in this type of crime. I understand that it's truly just a small, tiny drop in the bucket at the very best. But let's keep talking and working towards a better solution. Doing nothing isn't helping right now either. And I know it doesn't answer your question, but how does this move hurt?

 

I appreciate your explanation.

The move doesn't hurt. I doesn't help either. I see it as more of a marketing move than anything else. They want to look good in the eyes of the public, and it seems to work for some.

Folks, if Kroger came out today and released a statement saying they weren't going to sell potato chips any longer, do you think it would stop kids from being obese?

IMO, all the dealer should see is a green check or a red x when they run the background check. The background check company is the one that should review the information IMO. How to implement something like that, I don't know. But I think it'd have some merits to explore it at the very least.

 

All the dealer gets is a Proceed, Deny or Delay message, they get no information as to why one is denied.

All the dealer gets is a Proceed, Deny or Delay message, they get no information as to why one is denied.

 

And that's the way it should be.

A huge problem we have is the CDC is banned from researching gun violence, so the true mental health aspect is unclear.

 

Yes if it was studied I think it would open peoples eyes to the correlations between these types of events. I think both sides of the debate would be shocked and have to look at themselves first.

And that's the way it should be.

 

It's always been that way since the program started in the 90's.

I've always been under the impression that when we run background checks before hiring someone, it's with a company. Now maybe they're just a go-between that gets the info from the database, I don't know.

I get that for companies doing them but my I don't think their is a go between for firearm sales. The dealer contacts the FBI directly.

I get that for companies doing them but my I don't think their is a go between for firearm sales. The dealer contacts the FBI directly.

 

Correct, except a few states do conduct their own checks instead of using the FBI NICS system.