The present system based on purchases is good, as it prevents guns from being sold to people who should not have them, but it’s incomplete and inadequate, in my opinion. What about people in the household of the gun purchaser? What if a son or mother wants to borrow the gun? What if the owner will be with a teenage child while hunting or target shooting?
Is this acceptable? Can the teenage child be trusted alone with the gun? What age limit is appropriate or legal? Maybe there are different answers depending on the situation. In Pennsylvania, for example, there are rules for loaning and possessing firearms, but the gun owner is responsible for knowing the rules and making this determination.
Rarely does a parent get charged when a child commits a mass shooting, but in the 2021 Oxford High School shooting in Michigan that killed four students, Ethan Crumbley’s parents were both charged, convicted and sentenced to 10-15 years. Ethan’s father bought the gun.
The Crumbleys were the first parents to ever be charged and convicted in their child’s mass shooting at a U.S. school. They are the poster children for bad parenting.
I propose that each member of a household who would be using any gun in the home, or have access to the gun, pass an optional background check, even though they are not the purchaser. Once they pass the background check. they would be authorized to use any gun, assuming they have the permission of the owner.
Perhaps an ID card could be issued to everyone who passes a background check. The system could operate similar to driver’s licenses with suspension, renewals, etc. Having an ID card would take some burden off gun owners, making it easier for them to only loan the gun to people who passed a background check.
— Ed Sokalski in Your View: Background Checks Shouldn’t Just Be for Gun Buyers
Doesn’t matter if anything involved in it may be a good idea. Commies will twist it to take away more rights so not just no but fuck no.
Sokalski needs to take a literacy test.
If it takes an I Q of 30 to walk, his must be -12.
Perhaps an ID card could be issued to everyone who passes a background check. The system could operate similar to driver’s licenses with suspension, renewals, etc. Having an ID card would take some burden off gun owners, making it easier for them to only loan the gun to people who passed a background check.
Kind of like an arm band indicating your religion?
Having one’s drivers license revoked or suspended does not prevent them from driving.
But, sure, let’s violate the 4th and 5th amendments by requiring background checks for everyone because it might prevent something.
What a stupid thing to propose.
First this little tidbit of stupid…
“Can the teenage child be trusted alone with the gun?”
Can they, can anyone? Just how does a background check determine level of ‘trust’ that should be applied for anyone for anything?
Then this tidbit of stupid trying to imply and apply something that is not real for a ‘mass shooting’:
“Rarely does a parent get charged when a child commits a mass shooting, but in the 2021 Oxford High School shooting in Michigan that killed four students, Ethan Crumbley’s parents were both charged, convicted and sentenced to 10-15 years. Ethan’s father bought the gun.
The Crumbleys were the first parents to ever be charged and convicted in their child’s mass shooting at a U.S. school. They are the poster children for bad parenting.”
First, the Crumbleys were not “charged and convicted in their child’s mass shooting”. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another person while committing a negligent or unlawful act, It does not require intent and is characterized by a lack of malice. In other words, the Crumbleys were convicted of involuntary manslaughter because of their ‘negligence’ in dealing with an obviously mentally ill child and that child went on to commit his heinous crime.
The firearm was purchased by the dad and he had a background check, according to this missive of stupid he must have been ‘trust worthy’ right? But, how about the school staff – they knew the kid had problems, he even wrote it down for them in a note on his school work, yet, despite the allowance in law for them to do something and send an ‘immediate threat’ kid into custody for at least mental health evaluation or remove him from the school completely they didn’t do that yet, without any background checks for them what so ever they are considered ‘trust worthy’.
The government has decided that age 21 is the age for alcohol purchase, age 21 according to the government is the age at which a person is ‘trust worthy’ enough to handle drinking alcohol. Would a ‘background’ check have determined if a person was ‘trust worthy’ enough to handle drinking alcohol?
Our left wing liberal sectors of society is full of ‘doctors’ who have had ‘background checks’ for working in ‘state run’ and ‘federal’ programs dealing with children. Yet for some reason over 16,000 kids die annually as a result of the sexual abuse at the hands of these ‘doctors’ with ‘background checks’.
Ya remember Sam Brinton, that Biden administration nuclear official – he had a background check to have that job yet he turned out to be a nut case that dressed like a looney toons version of a waking nightmare drag show with a fetish for stealing women’s luggage.
The list goes on and on of how ‘background checks’ do nothing to determine a person ‘trustworthiness’, even for government employees.
Well-written comment! The only piece that seems suspect is this claim about 16k kids dying from abuse by doctors. Never heard that before. Do you have more info on this?
This is just grasping for straws by an ignorant person.
“Sokalski” eh? That’s one dumb Polack, he makes the rest of us of Polish heritage look bad … I’ll bet he wears a white, ribbed, tank-top undershirt and white socks with black sandals while sitting out in the sun.