Background checks = extermination of gun owners.

[Andrew D]

Just ask Ann Coulter:

Universal background checks means universal registration. Universal registration means universal confiscation, universal extermination. That's how it goes in history, do not fall for universal background checks.

Seriously!

She said so! It must be true!

The problem is the mentally ill! So let's not have background checks to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns!

You rock, Ann! You absolutely rock!

[oldr_n_wsr]

The guy in Newtown would not have even registered on the radar screen on any background check as he tried to purchase zero guns. Mom bought them all.

I'm not saying I do not favor background checks, just that this latest round of "problem solving" by our "lets do something" politicos would not have come across nor stopped this insane mass killer.

Only armed guards/police/swat would have stopped him.

[Lord Jim]

If this is correct, then why haven't those who have been a part of the 60% of gun sales that do include background checks, been put in a registry, had their guns confiscated, and been exterminated?

It's a little hard to follow Ann's logic on this one....

[Scooter]

The guy in Newtown would not have even registered on the radar screen on any background check as he tried to purchase zero guns. Mom bought them all.

If he had had contact with the mental health system (I'm not sure that he had) and if background checks were required of every member of the household where the guns would be living (as they should be), then sure he would have.

[Lord Jim]

if background checks were required of every member of the household where the guns would be

I don't see how that could be enforced or administered. Plus, even if it could, in many cases the information would be out of date pretty quickly.

[Scooter]

Information is always going to be "out of date" quickly, even for the primary applicant. Requiring people to provide a list of everyone who lives with them, and to keep it up to date, doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Will it be 100% complete? Obviously not. Will there be ways to check if it is? There are any number of databases (DMV, IRS, etc.) where an address search could be conducted in order to see what names pop up, and whether an applicant has disclosed all of them.

[Sue U]

Ann Coulter? The comedian?

[oldr_n_wsr]

If he had had contact with the mental health system (I'm not sure that he had) and if background checks were required of every member of the household where the guns would be living (as they should be), then sure he would have.

So now we are not only going to check the background of the person buying the gun (of which I am not necessarily opposed to but the devil is in the details) but anyone who may or may not be related to them, who may or may not live in their house, who may or may not even know that person?
Lets just do the background check, find the one person who the buyer came in contact with (reletive or not) who may be just slightly emotionally unstable and say no to them owning a gun. Sounds like a plan.

[Scooter]

Who said anything about anyone who may or may not know the person? Someone who lives in the house (whom the applicant will obviously know, to whom the applicant will almost always be closely related) will very likely have just as much access to the gun as the actual owner, and as such poses just as much risk if they have a violent criminal history, are mentally unstable, etc. The fact that I might have a screwball cousin who lives in Antwerp isn't a reason to deny me a gun, because he wouldn't have access to it. If he lived under my roof, however...

[oldr_n_wsr]

If he lived under my roof, however...

So your son/daughter the nut job, who may or may not live under your roof at that time, should keep you from owning a gun?
How about the person buying the gun(s) be responsible owner (unlike mom in Newtown) keep the guns away from the nutjob son/daughter. Why should the gov be judging (figuring out) those relatives who may or may not (at that givien point in time) live with the purchaser of the gun. Didn't the son live for a time in New Jersey? In which case the guns would/could be bought and then still in her possession. Is the gov going to track the nutjob son and see when he returns home and tell mom to give them back?

Put the onus on the gun owner, not on some agency to keep track of who the gun owner has in their house. You want to check out the purchaser, while I do have a problem with that I can agree with the premise, thats' fine. You want to check out who lives with me at that moment, or who might have lived with me yesterday or tomorrow, seems a can of worms. They, the gov, can't even do a thorough background check on teh buyer, forget about who might have lived in my house in the last few days and their mental history.

[Scooter]

So your son/daughter the nut job, who may or may not live under your roof at that time, should keep you from owning a gun?

I think I have been quite clear that I am talking only about those who live in the house, so why you keep moving the goalposts with this "may or may not" stuff is beyond me.

Why should the gov be judging (figuring out) those relatives who may or may not (at that givien point in time) live with the purchaser of the gun.

Who said anything about the government figuring it out? I would think that someone who wants to purchase a gun is intelligent enough to determine who is and who is not a member of his/her own household. Are you suggesting that the typical gun owner lacks this intelligence?

Didn't the son live for a time in New Jersey? In which case the guns would/could be bought and then still in her possession. Is the gov going to track the nutjob son and see when he returns home and tell mom to give them back?

It wouldhave been the mother's responsiblity to see that a background check was done on her son when he returned home (if one hadn't been done previously). Again, I fail to see anything particularly onerous about this.

Didn't the son live for a time in New Jersey? In which case the guns would/could be bought and then still in her possession. Is the gov going to track the nutjob son and see when he returns home and tell mom to give them back?

You make it sound like every American home is some sort of flophouse where near or total strangers are coming and going every day of the week. I repeat, it takes little intelligence and even less effort to determine who is an occupant of one's house. Why you want to pretend otherwise I care not to guess, as this Mickey the Dunce game has already bored me sufficiently.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So you are in agreement that the onus was on the mother to either lock her guns away when Jr was in town or turn them in?
I agree.
The gun shop retailer nor the gov can determine who is or isn't living in the house at any given day (relatives only, no flop house residents allowed)

I am talking only about those who live in the house, so why you keep moving the goalposts with this "may or may not" stuff is beyond me.

My son moved out, 3 months later he moved back in. So three months ago he lived with us, today he does not. If he doesn't have rent money this month, he may move back in with us. I am sure that happens all the time especially in todays economy. While he is emotionally stable (as far as I can see) when I do buy a gun, do I say he lives with me so the gov can check up on him, or do I say he doesn't and they only need to check on me (and maybe my wife)?

I would think that someone who wants to purchase a gun is intelligent enough to determine who is and who is not a member of his/her own household. Are you suggesting that the typical gun owner lacks this intelligence?

Again, I don't disagree that the onus is on the gun purchaser. If they think there is a threat that their guns might be used for illicit purposes by someon who lives in their house, they shouldn't even go to the gun store.
Moot point.

I repeat, it takes little intelligence and even less effort to determine who is an occupant of one's house.

And agian, it is up to the purchaser, not the seller, to determine who is living in their house and if that person is stable enough to be around a gun.

Why you want to pretend otherwise I care not to guess, as this Mickey the Dunce game has already bored me sufficiently.

Well that added a lot to the discussion.
Thanks for playing.

So who do you think should determine who lives with whom and who should determine if those living in the house are "up to snuff" to be living with a gun in that domicile? I thought we were talking about "background checks" but it seems the "goal posts" have been moved to the purchaser to determine who they live with and whether those in the house are sane enough to be around a gun. Which is it? I'll discuss either or both.

[Sue U]

So who do you think should determine who lives with whom and who should determine if those living in the house are "up to snuff" to be living with a gun in that domicile? I thought we were talking about "background checks" but it seems the "goal posts" have been moved to the purchaser to determine who they live with and whether those in the house are sane enough to be around a gun. Which is it? I'll discuss either or both.

What should be required is registration at the time of the initial purchase (with a form listing name, address and household members) and annual re-registration, noting whether any circumstances had changed (e.g. gun lost/stolen/sold, persons added to/no longer in the household, mental disorders/conditions, etc.). It's really not that difficult.

[oldr_n_wsr]

How about a "title" on the gun like cars have here in NY (possibly elsewhere).
You sell the gun, pass the title to the next owner who then gets the title changed to his name.

[rubato]

What should be required is registration at the time of the initial purchase (with a form listing name, address and household members) and annual re-registration, noting whether any circumstances had changed (e.g. gun lost/stolen/sold, persons added to/no longer in the household, mental disorders/conditions, etc.). It's really not that difficult.

Very sensible. Gun owners could be reminded annually or semi-annually about their responsibilities re: securing guns and ammunition against unsafe or unlawful use.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

What should be required is registration at the time of the initial purchase (with a form listing name, address and household members) and annual re-registration, noting whether any circumstances had changed (e.g. gun lost/stolen/sold, persons added to/no longer in the household, mental disorders/conditions, etc.). It's really not that difficult.

So if a family member is diagnosed with a mental disorder I'll write it on my annual re-registration form and then turn in all of my guns.

Or if my cousin moves in I'll need to ask him if he has been diagnosed with mental illness or ever has the urge to shoot large numbers of people. If he answers yes, I'll turn in my gun collection.

And if my weird uncle Ernie asks if he can stay with me for a couple months, I'll just tell him, "Fine. You'll just have to wait a day or two while I turn in my highly expensive gun collection."

But then I'll think about it and say, "No. Wait a minute! My annual gun re-registration isn't due for four months! You can move in today."

That sounds feasible.