archie bunker wrote:
My wife and I go through extensive background checks every year that must satisfy the DEA, FBI, and TSA. We just completed one today. They know that I owned a 1976 Ford F-250 34 years ago!!
There was a lot more than that that came up with both of us!
Here is the deal. If I freak out tonight, and decide that I want to go shoot up a place because they serve cottage cheese to people whom I deem unworthy of that d********g substance, how would that background check have helped?
Hillary, and the left say guns should be kept from people with h**e in their hearts. I H**E cottage cheese. Should I not be allowed to own a gun??
I could go on, and on with this....
The list of things I H**E is long. I guess I should surrender my weapons now. I always have LOWE'S, auto parts stores, and my imagination to help me resolve my H**E issues!
Why can't there ever be rational, reasonable, and logical conversations about this issue?
Rant over.
My wife and I go through extensive background chec... (
show quote)
Yeah, well, if background checks were able to keep convicted criminals locked up, 85% of all crimes committed would cease overnight. That means that only 15% of crimes are committed by first time criminals. Out of that 15%, perhaps 1%-2% would be "caught" by a background check and assuming they are otherwise law abiding citizens - they would be prevented from committing a violent crime.
Background checks only check the backgrounds of those submitting to background checks. Most criminal types don't ordinarily submit to such examinations, in fact, they avoid them assiduously. So in short, such extensive background checking, such as you described, may prevent one or two crimes a year. That seems to me, to be a very poor investment in time and effort, just to prevent a crime or maybe two every year.
As it is well known that 85% of all violent crimes are committing by recidivist criminals, the better investment would be in keeping such criminals under lock and key, or at least, keeping a very close watch on them once released, which cannot happen with a handful of officers trying to keep track of thousands of felons.
So we have two choices; arm every citizen and authorize them to use deadly force whenever they "feel" threatened, or, keep KNOWN criminals locked up, leaving police forces to catch the 12% "first timers" remaining.
I wouldn't mind the first scenario -except- the increasingly paranoid population might find myself, my wife, my parents, my kids and/or my grandkids, threatening at some time or another. My sense is, that the first scenario would result in masses of law abiding and "good" citizens deaths, leaving the criminals in charge of the country. I suppose it could be argued that the country is ALREADY being run by criminals, at least, those that haven't been caught yet, but that's another story.