I am fairly new, yes, I've only shot a few times recreationally.
Thanks for your comments, I indeed did need to do more research to educate myself. Some of the other comments on this thread were very helpful. I wonder what you think about expanding the background checks. It seems like the best way to prevent bad actors from acquiring guns, but I'm worried it would infringe on the ordinary American's ability to get them.
Always happy to help new folks get into guns, friend. I'm a huge proponent of every law-abiding citizen being armed and trained (in shooting, safety, and laws).
As for background checks, I think they're good the way they are.
This article explains what is currently examined during a background check:
In order to purchase a gun from a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL), a consumer must provide identification and pass a federal background check using the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ 4473 form.
The first page of the document requires basic information, including the buyer’s full name, address, sex, birthday and ethnicity. A Social Security number is encouraged, but not required.
The form also asks the buyer about criminal background, immigration status and mental health — information that could result in a consumer being denied. Those questions include:
Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?
Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?
Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
Lying on the federal form is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, an ATF spokesperson confirmed to Fox News. That penalty is also listed at the top of the form.
Once the form is completed, the dealer will submit it to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) online or by phone. Then, almost immediately, the licensed seller will know how to continue with the sale:
Proceed: If NICS indicates the seller can proceed, then the sale can continue.
Canceled or Denied: Should NICS mark the form as “canceled” or “denied,” the seller cannot legally sell the firearm to the buyer. Michael Smith, the vice president of marketing and media for Upstate Armory Group, a firearm dealer in Simpsonville, S.C., told Fox News he generally provides the customer with contact information for a local lawyer who handles restoration of firearm rights in case the failed background check is erroneous. There have been times police have arrived at the gun shop to arrest the customer who legally cannot purchase a gun, Smith said.
Delayed: If the background check elicits a “delayed” response from NICS, the seller cannot complete the transaction for at least three business days. Unless a specific “denied” designation is issued, the seller will be able to complete the transaction with the customer after that period elapses, under federal law.
Do you have an example of how it should be expanded?
Thanks for the great educational resources and for engaging in this discussion with me. I would agree that the current background check process is quite detailed. I think it would be great if these checks could be expanded to include mental and psychological assessments.
Most of the recent shootings in the US and around the world were done by people with mental / psychological issues of some kind. On a more human note, I think a psychologist spending an hour with such a person should be able to tell if they are going to shoot responsibly or not.
I don't want this psychologist to be the judge and jury of whether someone should be able to get a gun or not, but I do feel that we can make a lot of progress by making purchasing a gun more like an interview rather than a transaction.
The issue I have with that is it is an incredibly slippery slope. Where is the line drawn in terms of mental disorders? Do we nullify someone's 2A rights because they've been diagnosed with depression? Probably my bigger concern is how they would go about denying or approving it. If it's at the discretion of a psychologist or psychiatrist, there's a lot of personal bias that would be involved--especially since many in that industry lean heavily to the left. It's kinda like red-flag laws. They circumvent both your 2nd and 4th Amendment rights. They take away your ability to defend yourself on the premise that you may commit a crime. To me that's incredibly dangerous territory because the government and elites will use that to their advantage to disarm many, many law-abiding citizens.
In a perfect world it would be great to be able to be able to prevent mass shootings. Unfortunately, it would lead to a lot of corrupt disarming of the people. A lot of those mass shootings were carried out by people who acquired the firearms illegally (whether through the black market, theft, or otherwise) and would not have passed a background check regardless.
I think a more effective method of deterring mass shootings would be more citizens carrying (as well as the training I mentioned) and getting rid of "gun free zones." The vast majority of shootings occur in these "gun free zones." Criminals don't care about laws so GFZ's offer a prime target for defenseless victims. Conversely, a well armed society is a polite society. Take the attempted church massacre in Texas. The gunman was taken down by a citizen who was carrying and many other church-goers pulled their guns on him as well. They prevented what would probably have been a blood bath.
That's the issue you come across with a lot of Democrat or "common sense" gun laws. They make people feel good because it seems like something is being done, but really they just punish law-abiding citizens while the criminals end up having more soft targets.
I am fairly new, yes, I've only shot a few times recreationally.
Thanks for your comments, I indeed did need to do more research to educate myself. Some of the other comments on this thread were very helpful. I wonder what you think about expanding the background checks. It seems like the best way to prevent bad actors from acquiring guns, but I'm worried it would infringe on the ordinary American's ability to get them.
Always happy to help new folks get into guns, friend. I'm a huge proponent of every law-abiding citizen being armed and trained (in shooting, safety, and laws).
As for background checks, I think they're good the way they are.
This article explains what is currently examined during a background check:
Do you have an example of how it should be expanded?
Thanks for the great educational resources and for engaging in this discussion with me. I would agree that the current background check process is quite detailed. I think it would be great if these checks could be expanded to include mental and psychological assessments.
Most of the recent shootings in the US and around the world were done by people with mental / psychological issues of some kind. On a more human note, I think a psychologist spending an hour with such a person should be able to tell if they are going to shoot responsibly or not.
I don't want this psychologist to be the judge and jury of whether someone should be able to get a gun or not, but I do feel that we can make a lot of progress by making purchasing a gun more like an interview rather than a transaction.
Yeah, absolutely! Thank you for engaging as well!
The issue I have with that is it is an incredibly slippery slope. Where is the line drawn in terms of mental disorders? Do we nullify someone's 2A rights because they've been diagnosed with depression? Probably my bigger concern is how they would go about denying or approving it. If it's at the discretion of a psychologist or psychiatrist, there's a lot of personal bias that would be involved--especially since many in that industry lean heavily to the left. It's kinda like red-flag laws. They circumvent both your 2nd and 4th Amendment rights. They take away your ability to defend yourself on the premise that you may commit a crime. To me that's incredibly dangerous territory because the government and elites will use that to their advantage to disarm many, many law-abiding citizens.
In a perfect world it would be great to be able to be able to prevent mass shootings. Unfortunately, it would lead to a lot of corrupt disarming of the people. A lot of those mass shootings were carried out by people who acquired the firearms illegally (whether through the black market, theft, or otherwise) and would not have passed a background check regardless.
I think a more effective method of deterring mass shootings would be more citizens carrying (as well as the training I mentioned) and getting rid of "gun free zones." The vast majority of shootings occur in these "gun free zones." Criminals don't care about laws so GFZ's offer a prime target for defenseless victims. Conversely, a well armed society is a polite society. Take the attempted church massacre in Texas. The gunman was taken down by a citizen who was carrying and many other church-goers pulled their guns on him as well. They prevented what would probably have been a blood bath.
That's the issue you come across with a lot of Democrat or "common sense" gun laws. They make people feel good because it seems like something is being done, but really they just punish law-abiding citizens while the criminals end up having more soft targets.