Close vote predicted for Senate plan on gun buyer background checks

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    April 17, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    I'd love the part about a concealed carry permit being acceptable in all 50 states.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 17, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    About two weeks ago, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 17, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    "If you don't think background checks will lead to a registry of gun owners, you are incredibly naive."

    We have had background checks for many years now for gun sales by licensed gun dealers.

    Has there been a "registry of gun owners" from those checks?

    There are lots of things that are possible that will never happen.

    I think it is naive to think that Americans would collectively allow guns to ever be confiscated.

    I give the American people much more credit than that.

  • ronnie sandy, utah
    April 16, 2013 10:04 p.m.

    Will some one please explain to me why in other countries where there are fewer guns there is less gun violence and why is that bad?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 16, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Res Novae,
    If you don't think background checks will lead to a registry of gun owners, oyu are incredibly naive.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 15, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    There's a pattern here. In a close vote,-the liberals will get their way.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 15, 2013 6:57 p.m.

    @The Skeptical Chymist

    Before we has all these gun laws, and background checks,

    everyone had guns,
    children even took them to school,

    and they did not have all these problems,

    So clearly, to any reasonable person, it is the person.

    We need more education in morals, values, and principles, more help for those with mental problems,

    not more laws and regulations that only hurt the good guys.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    April 15, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    "The main reason the NRA and many others are opposed is that we are very worried about a federal database with names of all gun owners. Confiscation will be the inevitable result."

    This argument is made a lot, but there's a huge gap between registering weapons and confiscation, based on a number of large assumptions that are anything but clear. Can anyone explain all of the "inevitable" steps that lead to confiscation?

    "I don't want my name on a federal registry which will be there as long as I live."

    Do you pay federal taxes? Have a SSN? Own a passport? Ever served in the military? Ever been fingerprinted by federal law enforcement? Registered with the Selective Service? A 'yes' answer to any one of these questions means that ship has sailed.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 15, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    1 has the unique argument of the day - stop any and every attempt to regulate gun sales and ownership, and that will cause people to stop wanting to buy them. Has this little anti-marketing ploy actually worked for anything else? What could we try it with? Somehing that doesn't kill or wound people, perhaps?

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 15, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Who's going to do the background checks?

    ATF? How much will the (worthless)background checks cost us? I assume this is the SAME ATF that watched assault rifles be taken to Mexico for drug lords? Do we REALLY trust the ATF to keep our personal information confidential?

    How much "mental illness" can I have before I lose my 2nd amendment rights? Aren't my medical files/diagnosis supposed to be confidential?

    Even if (a big if) the Senate passes background checks, the House for sure won't go along.

    The sooner the whole gun control debate stops, the sooner people will QUIT buying all the guns and ammo they can get their hands on.

    Isn't that what the gun control crowd wants?

  • Gpagentry Orem, UT
    April 15, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    The main reason the NRA and many others are opposed is that we are very worried about a federal database with names of all gun owners. Confiscation will be the inevitable result. I don't want my name on a federal registry which will be there as long as I live.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    April 15, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    If there are 300M guns in America's private hands, that means there are a lot of guns and people that have multiple guns. Registration is done not with background checks and if there were 15,000 violations in the past year and only 44 were pursued, that is not going to improve by having a new law. We have seen that many inspectors in the various OSHA, EPA, FBI, state and local authorities have hasn't stopped the problems in those areas of responsibility. Individuals have rights and if government gets too overpowered with laws that can be used in different applications, it can be a dangerous place to live, with laws and not a lack of laws. Government isn't to be the end all of our existence. They are there for the safety and welfare of society not to govern everything you do. How many times you turn on water, flush the toilet, each unhealthy snacks, drink too much soda by the size of one drink and not how many 12 ounce cans you drink, etc. We know smoking is unhealthy along with drugs and alcohol but those are still allowed. People make money on guns, training and ranges.

  • Interloper Portland, OR
    April 15, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    More than 90% of Americans support background checks for all purchases or transfers of guns. Currently, there are no background checks for 40% of such transactions. These occur in private sells, at gun shows and over the Internet.

    A little over a week ago, a felon just released from prison killed his grandparents that night. Then Michael "Chadd" Boysen located gun shows in the Northwest on the Internet. Law enforcement took him into custody before he could reach a show and buy a gun. (The Boysen family is LDS, so some readers may have heard about this example of why we need background checks for all gun sales.)

    The research shows that states with background checks, such as Pennsylvania, don't allow felons and the mentally ill with violent inclinations to buy guns. There is no evidence that any gun control laws cause higher rates of gun violence.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    April 15, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    I can explain why Republicans are opposed to background checks on gun purchases. It is very simple. The NRA wants to do all it can to sell guns. The NRA is funded and supported primarily by gun manufacturing companies. The NRA is a bully when it comes to any legislation that could slow gun sales. Using their bullying tactics, they frame their arguments around protecting the Second Amendment. The NRA has saturated America with the unfounded fear of criminals and, in the process, has saturated America with guns. As more and more guns are sold in the U.S. the more likely they will end up in the hands of a "nutcake" who decides to kill people. When this happens, the NRA quickly states the problem can be solved with more guns. Selling guns is the NRA's goal and any legislation that slows that is opposed. It is a shame that Utah's Senators and Congressman are so gullible.

    April 15, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    Can anyone explain to me what is wrong with background checks? Why do republicans oppose background checks so much? If we have background checks are they worried they won't be able to buy guns anymore?

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    April 15, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    @JSB, in the area where I live, elementary schools that require school uniforms are much more likely to have low standardized test scores than elementary schools that don't require uniforms. Merits of school uniforms aside, that correlation doesn't imply that the uniforms are responsible for the students' test performance. For similar reasons, it would be foolish to assume that because there is a correlation between gun violence and gun control laws, somehow the gun control laws would be responsible for the gun violence. Like the school uniforms, gun control laws are generally an attempt to address an existing problem. Whether they work or not is a different question--and one we'll have a hard time answering given current constraints placed on the Centers for Disease Control.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    April 15, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    Universal Background Checks may not entirely remove the threat, but it will reduce the threat and that is a good thing. For example, in states where universal background checks are mandatory, women are 38% less likely to be murdered by an abusive husband. Not 38% less likely to be murdered by a gun, but simply 38% less likely to be murdered.

    No gun law anywhere can stop violence or murder, but background checks do help. As a gun owner I cannot see any logical argument which would explain why background checks are bad.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 15, 2013 6:20 a.m.

    For decades I've been hearing the mantra from the NRA: "Gun's don't kill people, people do". The logical conclusion, if one accepts this theory, is that we should do more to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. This proposal seeks to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I would think that the NRA and its supporters would jump at the chance to actually do something to show that they want to reduce gun deaths.

    The opposition to the idea of expanded background checks confirms for me the obvious: The NRA and its supporters have no desire to reduce the number of gun deaths in this country. Selling guns and ammunition is their bread and butter, and they really don't care how many people die.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    April 14, 2013 9:55 p.m.

    The problem with the legislation is that 1) it will cost a lot of money to enforce (what government program doesn't?) 2)Anyone that thinks it will keep guns away from idiots is living in another world. 3) The stricter the gun control laws in an area, the more gun violence there is (e.g. Chicago and Washington, DC). It will do the opposite that that the law is supposed to do.