WatchDorks.Net wrote:Newsflash: the vast majority of people in the above categories DON'T PURCHASE THEIR GUNS THROUGH REGULATED METHODS THAT WOULD REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS ANYWAY.
wottime wrote:...Gun laws are for law abiding citizens...
As with the old adage: "Locks just keep honest people honest," a common misconception and myth. The number of crimes committed in the U.S. with firearms could not possibly all be perpetrated with guns stolen from citizens who once lawfully possessed them. The majority of these weapons are lawfully purchased and then unlawfully distributed. Background checks could significantly constrict such trafficking by identifying those buying large numbers of guns and ammunition and excluding those with criminal backgrounds and ties to terrorist organizations from buying any.
We can use CT to illustrate another aspect of the point, but not Newton. Very close in time to the Newton tragedy, a grandmother picked up her grandchildren, two boys, aged 7 months, and two years old (on his second birthday) from their daycare center. Rather than take them home, where a birthday party awaited the guest of honor, she drove to a local park, shot and killed the boys, then herself. The woman had a longstanding history of Bipolar disorder, psychiatric hospitalizations and occasional violent behavior. In severely disturbed people like this murderer, the presence of a previously obtained firearm significantly increases the likelihood that they will act on a violent or homicidal impulse (as it does with crimes of passion). The pistol she used was lawfully purchased for her home; CT does not require background checks for firearms bought for home use or sport. The current laws there only require background checks for those applying for concealed weapons permits. The Public Information Officer I spoke to lamented that CT law enforcement had been trying to get the law changed for more than a decade, but that the public and lawmakers just don't get it.
We can also look at the Aurora shootings. Mr. Holmes lawfully purchased every firearm, every round of ammunition, every clip and every chemical, grain of powder and the bomb making devices that he obtained despite being a known and reported threat. We could certainly make the argument that hell bent for leather to do this evil deed, this twitch could have obtained these items on the black market. True, but, in so doing, there is a significantly increased likelihood of detection and intervention by law enforcement, particularly in the case of bomb making materials. Additionally, except for cheap pistols, "cold" (untraceable) sophisticated firearms are considerably more expensive on the black market and would preclude many, including Mr. Holmes, from buying the ordinance to carry out an attack of the magnitude he intended and partially carried out. If CO had the reporting and background check requirements that were enacted following this tragedy, it is highly likely it never would have occurred.
Perhaps one percent of the homicides that occur in this country receive national attention. They are by and large sensational cases that do not accurately represent this pox on our society. Background checks do not in any way prevent those entitled to possess firearms from obtaining them and to the extent they could significantly reduce the overall level of violence inflicted with firearms in the U.S., the time has surely come for background checks to be universally and mandatorily enacted.