Who should own guns? should there be background checks?

[jednp]

Originally Posted by hellagerms

I would not be wholly against the idea of only CCW holders being able to own weapons. Because all felonies and certian misdermeanors should preclude those who attempt to gain access to firearms IMO.

I do understand that there are some gun owners here who can't get a CCW for whatever reason. Perhaps an appeal process for those who can't obtain a CCW...

I'm not sure I like that idea.. I don't want total control over the people.. but.. I think we can all agree that there are people out there who at least for the time being, should be kept from purchasing a weapon. How do we go about that, without infringing on the rights of people who do nothing wrong? how do we stop that system from being abused?


The reason I've brought up the two threads I have going on safety, and backgrond checks.. is because I believe WE as gun owners.. should be the ones deciding what we think is OK as far as what needs to be done before a firearm can be purchased.. not the anti-gun people out there.. I believe that we know better what would work and what wouldn't work.. so we should be discussing issues like this. What do we think could have stopped this guy from getting the weapon.. if anything at all.. and if there was something.. would gun owners accept it being used as a reason to deny purchase?

I firmly believe that know better, how to protect people than someone who has no clue about how violence occurs, and no clue about good people using guns. We know the stuff that would work.. we should try to be the frontrunners in the discussion on these matters.

[jednp]

Ok, so I've been sitting here thinking about this thread and all we've talked about. The only conclusion I can come up with is we need background checks to make sure these guns stay out of the hands of known bad people. As far as the stalking, arson, and any other thing that could potentially be used to deny you purchase... the only way to make that work.. is if you're caught stalking.. you need to be arrested and charged.. if you're caught doing arson, you need to be arrested and charged. Any other dangerous crime/behavior that you are arrested and charged for... not convicted... during the time that your charges are pending for whatever crimes show you might be a danger... you are not allowed to purchase a firearm.

Once charges are dropped, or once a conviction is made.. then another decision comes. You either lose all restrictions on purchases... or new restrictions come into place.

That would avoid people who are simply accused of a crime, from being affected. If you've been accused of stalking but there's no proof so they can arrest and charge you.. then no restrictions.. but if they have proof.. they need to start arresting and charging.

So basically in the end, start enforcing the damn laws and charging people for crimes like stalking, threats, etc.. these are the people we fear.. why aren't we charging them? This would eliminate good people who simply are accused.. from being harassed by the restrictions.

At leat I THINK that sounds like an OK plan.. may not be perfect.. but it'd at least give a way to red flag people who have pending charges for certain crimes against them.

[Dakotaranger]

The laws are solid enough and I don't want to go beyond what we have already. If the call into the state police didn't report an arrest for arson there is no-fault for the gunshop owner either.


Sometimes evil just finds a way.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by Dakotaranger

The laws are solid enough and I don't want to go beyond what we have already. If the call into the state police didn't report an arrest for arson there is no-fault for the gunshop owner either.


Sometimes evil just finds a way.

but... I'm not sure background checks work the same way all places though.

And what I'm talking about, is giving the people doing the background check, a way to know about certain crimes that a person has been charged with.. if someone was arrested on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon... released until trial.. not convicted yet... shouldn't that be made available to the people doing the checks? same goes for someone doing stalking.. making threats... until charges are dropped... shouldn't those people be assumed risks to others and forbidden from purchasing a firearm until the all clear is sounded and charges are dropped?

[Majk]

Originally Posted by jednp

it doesn't.. I agree. that's why I put a few posts ago, that I have no clue if when things change about you.. do they make you hand in the permit.. do the dealers have to enter the permit into something to see if it's still valid? If not, then 3 years later it's useless.

Well said.

Just like it's been said about our criminal justice system. It's not perfect but it's what we have.

I think the system we have is what we have and it will never catch all the eveil thats out there. But maybe, just maybe somebody could have stopped that shooter with a ccw.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by Majk

Well said.

Just like it's been said about our criminal justice system. It's not perfect but it's what we have.

I think the system we have is what we have and it will never catch all the eveil thats out there. But maybe, just maybe somebody could have stopped that shooter with a ccw.

yeah.. our system is what we have.. I definitely do not want people reading our minds trying to find out what we're going to do ahead of time.. but.. I just think there are certain things a person can do that should throw up a red flag.. it doesn't have to be a permanent red flag.. but when it comes to a firearm.. if a person has something about them that any sane person thinks is a real possible threat.. maybe their firearm purchase needs a little bit deeper look before allowing them to actually get the weapon.

If a person has been reported stalking people, reported doing arson.. I honestly think that police need to arrest the people and charges filed if they have proof of the incidents. let the courts sort it out. Our courts don't do much to protect us from criminals.. because criminals aren't prosecuted often enough for some of the crimes. Too many cases of stalking, threats... go unprosecuted. Do you support prosecuting these cases more and using things such as those as reasons to deny a firearm purchase until they are cleared of the charges? or keep the restrictions in place if they are convicted?

[eric_t12]

Originally Posted by jednp

There needs to be a way to have a system which identifies real problem people.. not just a system that prohibits anyone who has ever comitted any sort of crime.. the crimes need to be types of crime that show someone is a danger to others physically.

+100

Felonies can be anything from bank fraud to mass murder and treason.

If i had some bad times in my life and got caught for writing too many bad checks, i wouldn't want to be denied the right for that reason. If i beat my wife regularly and killed two kids in a drunk-driving incident then yea. but - that just seems obvious... doesn't it?

[jnclement]

Originally Posted by jednp

Well.. if he went through the NCIS and Virginia state police background check.. then I am completely mistaken. Every report I've heard has said there are no background checks to purchase a handgun in Virginia. They said he went in with the money, and came out with a gun.. that simple.

You say stalking reports are not arrests or convictions.. ok.. I'll give you that. But.. what IF this guy had been arrested, but not convicted for stalking lets say.. maybe last month.. maybe 2 weeks ago? should that be reason to deny him?

And I also agree that you cannot predict, explain, a mad man.

All I'm saying.. is.. should there be certain things about someone that throws up red flags to temporarily deny a purchase, until the matter can be looked into deeper? Only certain things.. like stalking, death threats.. to see if there is credible evidence to provide a reason to deny the purchase.

I'm not saying i AGREE OR DISAGREE with any of the things I'm talking about.. I'm simply stirring debate.

CNN interviewed the gun store owner in Roanoke, who informed them of the background checks. And any arrest should show up.

The flags here that should have been caught were ignored by his teachers and fellow students. I saw a student who talked about how surprised she was Cho lived in her dorm, and even more surprised he lived on her floor. That's a common denominator in school shootings; the shooter feels ignored and isolated. Makes me wonder if someone had said hi on occasion........

The answer to your debate is in place in Cali and NJ, it's called a waiting period, and low cap mags. Neither of which would have helped.

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by Dakotaranger

Sometimes evil just finds a way.

That is a great comment.

[45s4life]

Something should have also lite up when more than half of his english class didn't return because they were afraid of him, however, our gun laws are solid, look at the laws he broke after he bought them. If he couldn't have bought them legally, I'm sure he would have tried to obtain them illegally. If he could not have gotten guns, what would he have used and how many more people might he have killed. He obviously had a mental or depression issue, where were his parents to not notice these issues. I have no problm with background checks to stop criminals from purchasing guns, however, the guy selling guns out of his trunk doesn't do background checks and he's probably a felon himself.

Heard this morning that Japan is another country that doesn't allow gun ownership, but one of its mayors was gunned down by a Mobster yesterday.
Criminals get guns, don't abide by any laws, yet honest citizens loose their rights and freedoms. Maybe it's easier to be a criminal. You can own all types of guns even full automatics and not pay for any licenses.

My thoughts go out to the innocent victims.