Link to Article
According to the FBI, during this year's Black Friday, 203,086 background checks were conducted for firearm purchases. This is the highest number of background checks for any Black Friday in history. The fact is that Black Friday is a very popular day for buying guns. The required background checks are meant to ensure that the guns don't fall into the wrong hands.
However, these background checks are often ineffective. Background checks are quick and deliberate, and not very hard to get around. For example, only licensed firearm dealers require background checks. Unlicensed firearm dealers do not require background checks and will sell their guns to virtually anyone who is willing to pay.
In my opinion, gun violence is a problem in present-day America. However, I believe that it is more of a culture issue than anything else, evidenced by the fact that the most gun violence occurs in the areas with the strictest gun control laws. I also believe that these background checks will not be an effective deterrent to gun violence, simply because they are too easy to get around.
Discussion Questions:
Do you believe that background checks are an effective way to deter gun violence? Why or why not?
What do you believe to be the best way to stop gun violence in America?
13 comments:
While background checks may not be the most efficient way countermeasure against gun violence it does highlight that there needs to be a solution for this problem. Increased checks do prevent some people from obtaining weapons that should have them in their possession, but your assertion is correct that they are often ineffective. However, just through the process people are able to further grasp the responsibility of gun ownership as it is not a trivial matter. I believe that we should remove the ability of purchasing all automatic and semi-automatic guns as these are ineffective tools for self defense as well as hunting and show no real use besides an adrenaline rush of firing such a weapon. This would cut down on mass shootings with it being harder to fire at such a high rate
Background checks do deter some amount of violence but there still needs to be other solutions to gun violence. Clearly, background checks are necessary it prevents some criminals from acquiring weapons at least legally. There is much evidence to prove that the background check is not very effective. Many people continue to pass the background check even if they should not. Owners of the weapons used in many mass shootings tend to have acquired the weapon legally. With this being said, I agree with Tim, the purchase of automatic and semi-automatic should be banned.
I do not believe that background checks are an effective way to deter gun violence because there are so many ways around those background checks. While background checks are helpful and necessary, they do not stop criminals or the mentally ill (among many other groups) from purchasing guns, and are therefore not effective. I agree with Tim, that all automatic and semi-automatic guns should be should not be sold to the regular American. So, I believe that the best way to stop gun violence in America is to regulate which guns can be sold to Americans, who can buy the guns, and stopping unlicensed firearm dealers from selling guns.
Not only are background checks one of the only ways in which to prevent gun violence, but they are THE way to prevent gun violence. Mental Health and Criminal background checks are not only THE way to prevent future gun violence, they can also help law enforcement find those who have committed gun violence. The background check works on the mostly correct assumption that if I haven't committed violence before buying a gun, I won't immediately start committing violence after I buy a gun. Liberals seem to think that guns kill people-and while that's partially true, the statement "guns kill people" seems to imply that not only do firearms have free will as sentient beings, they use this free will to kill people-which we all know is ludicrous. With or without guns, violence will always be a thing, especially in such a large and diverse country such as America. However, guns don't have to be the ones to incite violence-guns can also be the ones to deter violence as well, as people with guns will protect their lives, homes, property, and families. Guns have always been the great equalizer between peoples, and pro-gun advocacy groups such as Black Guns Matter (a pro-gun advocacy group for african-americans) and Pink Pistols (an equivalent organization for LGBTQ+ people) realize this. I don't believe this is a cultural problem, but a government problem-if government shouldn't get involved in my bedroom, workplace, or medicine cabinet, then it definitely shouldn't get into my gun locker.
Building on the comments above, background checks are a good way to decrease gun violence. It is important to know a person's mental state when the person buys the gun, however I also think background checks should happen every few years after the gun owner has bought the gun. Yes, there are some mentally competent people who have taken pert in mass shootings, however I think that mental checks will definitely bring down the violence rate.
Regardless if background checks are the best and most efficient way to combat gun violence, it should still be made stricter. Although it is true that there are a lot of ways for people to bypass these background checks, they do provide some level of protection and security. Anything and everything should be done to prevent gun violence, and if background checks have been helping to limit them, even if only by a little bit, they should continue to be implemented. What I think would be more effective than background checks though would be to completely ban anything more than a handgun. I'm not sure why people are allowed to purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic guns; if the second amendment is meant to protect people, I do not see why a handgun can do that. I think the cons of powerful guns being legal outweighs the pros of them.
I've never actually seen a background check being performed really. If they are what I think they are, then I do not think that they are effective in stopping gun violence. Anyone who is at least somewhat crafty is able to evade that. If performed on a mentally deficient person, though, I'd say there's a good chance that they would be able to prevent people from getting hurt. Very unlikely that background checks would be able to do anything, but in my opinion, if there's a chance I think it is still worth taking. On the topic of stopping gun violence, it's really difficult for America and here's why. America build itself on tradition and the right to bear arms, which in my opinion, makes it very hard to stop gun violence. Since you Americans hang on to your precious freedoms so much, you find people getting hurt. Well gun violence is just a package deal with the second amendment. Deal with it I suppose. Severely restraining gun violence would, I imagine, would take something on the lines of taking careful care of who one is selling guns to, keeping track of all guns, and have areas be heavily monitored. Good luck with getting any of those done though..
Based on what I have read, background checks do not provide an effective gun deterrent. I think they would be more effective if there were repercussions to failing the background check. To me, a background check seems like it can be taken over and over until one passes, making them useless. The checks and repercussions should be made in a way that is not too punitive. People who don't realize they aren't eligible shouldn't be sentenced to death, but I believe a punishment would make background checks WAY more effective. As for solving gun violence, the absolute solution would be to ban all guns, but that is never going to happen. I think the best solution is to tighten restrictions, not loosen them, because even though people can protect themselves with guns, not everyone is going to get a gun if they can, and the next easiest way to level the playing field is by tightening restrictions the those prone to violence cannot obtain guns.
Background checks are not the solution to gun violence in America but it shows that America is taking gun violence more seriously. I think it is a step in the right direction but as we all know, many gun holders responsible for the recent tragedies know how to work their way around them.
While background checks may be somewhat effective in ruling out who is absolutely unfit to own a gun, they would not be efficient enough to deter gun violence. There need to be more laws in place to limit gun use and to therefore lessen gun violence because it is clear that background checks alone are not enough. The best way to reduce gun violence is to eliminate guns in general. I acknowledge that this sounds ridiculous and unrealistic but.. I mean.. no guns = no gun violence.
I agree that while background checks on guns are a step in the right direction to curbing gun violence, they are not doing and will unlikely do enough. I like Kevin's point on how it will be hard to stop gun violence due to the Second Amendment, as it can be easy to argue that any sort of gun control is a breach of our freedom. I wish the solution could be as simple as banning guns completely, but that presents the argument of freedom versus safety. I find it idealistic that some oppose types of gun control because they think that guns are being used for self-defense; according to a year-old article from the Washington Post, for every one gun used for protection, six more are used for violent crimes. So yes, guns can be used for self-defense, but that is significantly outweighed by guns being used for violence. You can't keep guns around to be used only for protection but not violence, so I think that banning all guns would be the best way to reduce gun violence, but that is obviously too idealistic and unlikely to happen here.
Like others have previously mentioned, background checks are ineffective because they are lenient and have too many loopholes. I think that if background checks were more strictly enforced and had more requirements for a person to be able to own a gun, that the rate at which they would be used for violent crimes would decrease. Countries with stricter gun laws and a lower rate of those who own guns also have lower rates at which gun violence occurs simply because there are less guns floating around within the public. Although highly unrealistic, I think that the United States government should mandate a recall of guns until people can safely pass a stricter background check.
I do agree that background checks are inefficient because if an individual wants a gun, he or she will find some way to get one. I think that the first step is to issue gun licenses that people carry around when they have a gun -- like a driver’s license. All of us who drive cars have taken a driver’s test that tests us on the rules of the road. Instead of background checks, gun licenses that are similar to driver’s licenses should be issued because it ensures that individuals are following rules and are safe in the process. People who own guns should be educated on the proper way of loading and unloading a gun, proper means of carrying a gun and using a gun. Then, a test on using a gun should determine whether an individual is fit to use one. Guns are responsible for many tragedies and deaths every year and therefore should be regulated.
Post a Comment