One major reason that background checks are meaingless

[1-Old-Man]

Don't get me wrong, I think there needs to be something done to control guns in our society, I'd just like to be it be something that would be effective.

Here is some discouraging news from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, numbers on stolen firearms. Spoiler: 1.4 million of them have been stolen in the last 5 years, and that number may only represent about 85% of those stolen. Not good news. Here's the link:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

[undeterred]

1. I don't find that a reasonable argument against having background checks.

People also need to effectively store and lock their guns and ammunition.

[1-Old-Man]

6. It is far from a complete argument, it is just one point in one.

I agree that in itself it is not compelling, but it is a somewhat strong sub argument.

In its defense I would have to say that if, as the article indicates, most guns are stolen during burglaries that in fact they were in some way stored and in many cases I would venture to guess even locked, to the extent anything in the home can be locked down.

I think the background check's basic problem is that it presumes that rational people today will not do irrational things tomorrow. Of course the notion that stolen firearms are on a sure route to further criminal activity (other than their possession itself) might be mistaken as well. I have to think that many guns that are stolen are not for use robbing the local liquor store but stolen for resale, possibly to new owners just as reasonably lawful as the original (legal owners). Those guns, despite whatever laws are passed, will never be subject to a background check when the robber disposes of them, and the buyers of those guns, and there will be many people who are perfectly willing and desirous to own guns that are not known to the state standing in line to buy them. Human nature.

[randome]

2. The background checks will stop SOME.

Just because it won't cure all the world's ills is no reason to not try.

[bluedigger]

3. That's an inventory control problem.

Two separate issues.

[Bay Boy]

4. I see the expanded background checks stopping people like

Loughner. The deranged lunatic loner type(as long as they are in the NICS system). They are less likely to have the connections to purchase stolen guns.

I see it having little effect on big city, gang banger crime.

If you want to stop that you need to legalize drugs.

[libtodeath]

5. So because someone can steal a car

means we dont license and register them?

[madinmaryland]

7. No. Background checks of ALL gun transactions would be a start, followed up

by liability requirements/insurance for all owners of firearms.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Strict accountability for purchased weapons.

No loopholes. No private sales. Gun stolen and not reported? Go to jail.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Oh and about these ineffective laws?

If they don't do anything, why all the upset?

[kestrel91316]

10. Blah blah blah, just more Helpless Hannah blathering and handwringing........

Oh, what are we to do, everyone keeps proposing solutions that won't solve 100% of the problem!!

I'll take that half a loaf, thank you.

[farminator3000]

11. BG checks have NOTHING to do with stolen guns, so

that doesn't really work.

yes they won't stop people from stealing a gun, um, but they stop other people, ya see?

like the 40% of sales that are now black market?