Crazy cops

[brice1967]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/cop-shoots-baby-and-husband-murder-suicide_n_3085099.html

Now, about those back ground checks.....

[brice1967]

It's okay and I understand how you feel.  Not belittling the situation, but it is a "feel good" thing.  We really feel when we do something like this that is it going to have wonderful outcomes and that it is going to at least "keep the guns out of the hands of some people who should not have them."  

But thinking of these background checks... how about the people who have legally obtained guns in the past, but now for some reason don't pass the required background check?  What happens to that person?  Where are we really going with this?  How about the people that are flying under the radar... own guns illegally (by the new standards) but have never been a problem?  

I don't think we are addressing everything.  I know we aren't addressing the mental illness issue completely.  Mental illness has no face.  Some may be thwarted by these checks, and some are not.  Either way, it is not addressing the mental illness part of the equation.  I would imagine that being labeled as "mentally ill" will probably have some other downfalls in life.... would this person be able to drive a car?  If he is liable to go shoot up some place, why not drive through a crowd?  

Simply, I don't see these regulations of doing anything.... but if it makes people feel better, even though it isn't working.... it must be worth it.  Kind of like all of the smoke and mirrors we talk about.

By the way, go check out the link I posted.  It's probably not what you think.  

[Barb135]

I understand that if someone wants a gun badly enough, they will get one.  The idea is weed out as many people as possible who should not have them and that includes those with mental illnesses, as well as outright criminals (whom we know aren't going to the gun store to get their gun anyway).  If someone who failed a background check, is later caught with a gun, that should be grounds for arrest.

To me, this is kind of like locking my house up when I go someplace.  If someone is really intent on getting in, they will do so, no matter how many locks I put on the doors, bars on the windows, etc.  BUT - if someone isn't real set on breaking and entering, they try my door and find it locked, they might find that it's not worth having to break in or the penalty of getting caught.  In other words, locking my doors simply helps keep the honest people honest.  I think background checks will do about the same thing.

All of that said, along with the background checks, they need to come up with ways to actually stop, or at least decrease, criminal activity.  As was pointed out in another thread, even the death penalty and double life sentences are not good deterrents.  I'm not sure of the answer, but I believe a lot of it has to do with family life, parenting, teaching kids to respect other people and their property, being alert for mental issues, etc.

[brice1967]

If someone wants a gun bad enough, they will get a gun.  Failing a back ground check will have people running to the untraceable black market for a gun where there aren't any back ground checks to begin with.

When it comes to guns, I follow the laws so I will do whatever is necessary to purchase my next gun.  Criminals won't.  Unfortunately, its that easy.  

[Barb135]

I really have no objection to the background checks; I've undergone 2 background checks and been finger printed twice in order to obtain public employment.  If I have to do it to get a job, why shouldn't I have to do it to buy a gun?  

That said, there's no way background checks are going to catch everyone who might be unstable or become that way; we all know that, or at least we should.

My last job was with a county school system; we had teachers, bus aides, janitors, etc molesting kids, arrested for prostitution, theft, etc........ every one of them were background checked before they got their jobs; once they passed the background check they were home free and their only worry was getting caught.  IMO, that doesn't mean that background checks don't work, because they do identify some of the "undesirables".   Private subcontractors that worked for us were required to have their employees get background checks....... ooh, kept a bunch of nasty  people away from children.

While background checks are not the be all, end all, I think they will weed out, not all, but a lot of people that shouldn't have guns.  

Here's something that I might have missed in this whole thing: If one does not pass the background check, are they told "why" they didn't pass?  What if someone input inaccurate information into the system and someone is denied, inappropriately?  Do they have the right to appeal?

The woman in this article was police officer for 13 years in one precinct; obviously, she passed the background check or she wouldn't have been a police officer. Seems that this is one of those things that nobody saw coming.  

Unfortunately, this is one of those tragedies that will always be a part of our society and I think more emphasis needs to be put on education.

[mikesimon]

Oh boy.

[brice1967]

I think it also flies in the face of the back ground checks having any real validity.  Someone may come off as totally sane.  Never been in trouble with the law, no parking tickets, no drama at work, (keep building up a good guy scenario) then all of a sudden....SNAP.  

By the way, what ever happened to suicides of the old days?  You know, the kinds where the disenfranchised kill themselves and themselves only?

[mikesimon]

Well, it certainly flies in the face of the idea that the good guys having guns makes us safer. If we can assume that cops are the good guys....and presumably they undergo weapons safety training and know all about their guns.