Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Question: How does enforcing background checks on law abiding citizens prevent gun violence when there are people who steal them?

Didn't Adam Lanza steal his mother's guns? And what about the guy in Arizona? Weren't his guns stolen or were they purchased?

Don't get me wrong, I think background checks are important for people who purchase a gun, but criminals don't exactly go through proper channels to get guns. You know...sort of like how a bank robber doesn't exactly get a job to get the money out of the bank or (in the context of banks) opens a savings account. So how will this eliminate the potential for more shootings? I'm sorry, but it won't do anything! People like Adam Lanza are crazy, heartless and will do anything to harm people. Just look at the fuckers who bombed the Boston Marathon. Do you think they gave a shit about abiding by the law? We need to combat this issue from another angle, not just with background checks.

Answer Question
 
uwmilf

Asked by uwmilf at 12:36 PM on Apr. 18, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 17 (3,633 Credits)
Answers (28)
  • I think there should be more education in the home of gun owners. All of these "accidental' sun shootings in homes are a cause of the gun not being properly stored. Guns should be locked up not just open access for anyone to grab.
    Background checks will help very little, yes it will stop a criminal from buying a gun legally but if the criminal is determined he will find a gun illegally.
    LostSoul88

    Answer by LostSoul88 at 12:40 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • It might. It might not. I don't know why law abiding citizens would be against background checks when buying a gun though.
    And I agree, it is stupid to focus just on this one angle.
    JulieJacobKyle

    Answer by JulieJacobKyle at 12:40 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • They won't...I mean that's why they are "law abiding" citizens, but a criminal is still a criminal. They are NOT law abiding, therefore they won't go through background checks because they will just steal it if they need it.
    uwmilf

    Comment by uwmilf (original poster) at 12:43 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • I think what op is saying is that making it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase a firearm, is not going to stop gun violence because the criminals are the ones who do the violence and they will skip all of that by stealing them or purchasing on the black market.
    Dardenella

    Answer by Dardenella at 12:52 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • I get what she is saying, but most people are already having background checks when buying a gun. It's not a big deal, and I don't see why it's not required. I don't know if it might help or not, but it wouldn't hurt anything.
    JulieJacobKyle

    Answer by JulieJacobKyle at 12:53 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • I'm not arguing the background checks I'm just saying it won't make any damn difference to the people who steal the guns.
    uwmilf

    Comment by uwmilf (original poster) at 12:56 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • The Police in most states are doing gun buy backs with no questions asked. So the criminals who are usually drug addicts too are turning in stolen guns for money to buy drugs. The need for the drugs is obviously stronger than the need for a gun. This buy back has been very successful & taken many stolen guns off the streets. Then the Police take the fingerprints off the guns, compare them to fingerprints of crimes in a database then arrest the criminal responsible.

    ILovemyPaulie

    Answer by ILovemyPaulie at 12:57 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • Paulie,

    Smart! That makes a lot more damn sense.
    uwmilf

    Comment by uwmilf (original poster) at 12:59 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • This is what I don't understand about the whole gun control conversation. We already have laws for regulating guns. More laws won't prevent those who are already set on breaking the law. Adam Lanza set out to kill people which is against the law. If he hadn't had a gun in his home that belonged to his mother (which she attained legally), he'd have plotted some other way to carry out his attack. The right to bear arms didn't become a right so people could hunt, it became a right to give citizens a means to overthrow their government if the government became a threat to us as citizens and for protection against any threat. You can regulate society but really all you are doing is regulating those who already observe and follow the laws and regulations. I'm not against more back ground checks but if it won't do any good, why bother?
    HHx5

    Answer by HHx5 at 1:03 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

  • They need to find a different way to deal with the illegal guns. Screwing with the law abiding people will not help.

    louise2

    Answer by louise2 at 1:05 PM on Apr. 18, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.