एक बंदूक खरीदने के लिए हर व्यक्ति को एक आपराधिक और सार्वजनिक सुरक्षा पृष्ठभूमि की जाँच पारित करने के लिए आवश्यक होना चाहिए?

Make use of guns illegal for everyone, including police and military.

Instant Checks with no tracking or database would be sufficient. There should be a database created for the adjuticated insane and mentally ill just like there is for convicted felons.

The government will find a loophole to never give a gun to anyone. I think ex-cons shouldn't have guns. This will reduce law abiding citizens to freedom to protect their families. Look at Puerto Rico. They have loopholes to allowing anyone a gun. Most of the crimes are committed by criminals with guns.

Treat guns like cars — owners required to carry license and insurance, and pass a test that they can use them and understand the responsibility.

They already do. Quite wasting resources on folks who obey the laws and concentrate on criminals by enforcing existing laws.

Aggressive gun restrictions will eventually educate citizens as to the dangers of guns in our society without running afoul of the Constitution. At this stage in our nation's development, the citizenry is still woefully ignorant of the true impact of accidental gun deaths...until it happens in their family or someone they know.

Background checks are ineffective and a waste of government resources - the criminals STILL have guns even with background checks so what's the point?

Criminals will always be able to get guns because criminals do not obey laws. Laws are made to keep law abiding citizens honest. Criminals could care less how many laws we make. The constitution is my gun permit.

The debate on guns must be about amending the 2nd Amendment. Until then, the Constitution states that the right to be armed shall not be infringed therefore any restriction on gun ownership is unconstitutional.

I believe there should be red flags for people with criminal records and serious mental problems or with links to terrorism. I realize also this can be misused so issuing authorities for gun permits would have to be involved and their power limited and monitored for abuse.

I believe in a 3 day cooling off period from purchase to receiving the gun, but any American not convicted of an offense involving a weapon or gun, murder of any type, should be allowed to own a gun. Extreme government oversight is Un-Constitutional and can lead to a police state.

Only support non-family private transfer background checks if a fully functional and coherent system, one which is linked to all justice and mental health data systems, as the current incomplete system is not thorough enough to be truly effective.

No, they are ineffective thanks to underground trafficking. Criminals will have guns and decent citizens will not with stricter laws.

No, not only are they not effective, but they also put to much power in the state's hands. Train gun sellers on how to discern sales. Place trade laws to govern those who sell them and then let them govern who they sell to.

No, because there is no requirement for this in the second amendment. The second amendment says we have the right to "keep and bear" arms. It does not say keep and bear arms if your background check meets some arbitrary standard set by someone in government. We should follow our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Background checks are a good move. But adding to that, harsher punishment for gun owners when laws are broken involving their weapons. I realize this also effects those who are responsible firearm owners. Owning a firearm has become too much of a casual luxury.

No, background checks are ineffective and a waste of government resources, and of our money, here in Oregon you have to do a background every time you buy a new gun, at 10.00 a pop, unless you buy 2 or 3 at a time at the same store, and FYI there have been several well known shootings done by people that bought them legally, but they were Mentally deficient. Once you have been cleared after a background you shouldn't have to go through it every time, they should have a fast track system, or a short form once you've done it once

Every person should have to fire at least 50 round from each weapon and trained how to handle the firearm under a supervisor which grants you pass of fail and advised the proper law enforcement agency.

Since criminals have no problem getting guns, the only people subject to checks are the law-biding ones. It's a waste of government money.

There are already enough laws. Criminals break laws no matter how many you implement; law- abiding citizens already adhere to them.

Yes, but background checks should be limited to crimes of violence and medically documented conditions so severe that a doctor flags the individual as a likely threat to society.

Background checks at the local level would be best. No federal database of gun ownership.

Yes, but even if a person with a criminal background isn't able to purchase a gun, they will still find a way to illegally buy or steal guns.

Yes, but for mental health checks only. Criminals in jail don't have the ability to purchase guns, and once they have left jail they are not considered criminals any longer!

Because of the issue of so many unknown illegals allowed in this country I would have to say what good will a background check do? We have hundreds of thousands of undocumented people and how many have stolen or false identification? Don't infringe on my Second Amendment Rights, but this POTUS has set the stage for serious concern about illegal aliens attaining firearms. Because of this, I'd have to say we need background checks to buy a firearm.

There should be a database to include convicts and violent people who suffer mental illnesses. Those should be prohibited from purchasing a gun.

no. the government has no right to tell an individual what products they can and cannot buy.

Only violent felons should be prevented from purchasing a gun.....NOT all felons. For example, someone convicted of tax fraud, who has completed the sentence required by the court, should be allowed to purchase a gun.

The criminal background check should be limited to crimes in which guns were used

Yes, except for private transfer of ownership between family members and Yes, require strict background checks, psychological testing, and training for handguns and automatic weapons. Rifles and shotguns background checks only.

It just adds more to the big brother cycle.

Define public safety. Too subject to abuse. How often have we heard politicians, media, etc saying their opponents are a threat to public safety? How can you claim convicted felons are too dangerous to have a gun but are safe enough to be given back their franchise? Are we saying the vote is really irrelevant?

I am conflicted. Guns need to be controlled. But judicial and law enforcement biases also create criminal record disparities for different racial or ethnic groups. Not sure what a public safety background check encompasses.

no, this would increase the illegal gun trade for individuals that wouldn't pass in a background check. Thus this would essentially make ti more dangerous due to the a lot of individuals having illegal weapons anyway. This would also increase the crime rate because it makes it more difficult to purchase a gun for people such as store owners, construction workers, and bank employees.

Yes, however background checks alone are not enough. Again, the government is incapable of administering such programs because of its dependence on liars on both sides of the issue.

No, I think background checks are largely inefective. However I do believe a firearms safety certification should be required for people owing or puchasing a gun. You need to pass a safety test to drive a car. All hunters take a hunters safety class. Why not require the same for everyone who buys a gun. (Hunters safety should count for firearm safety)

Guns should not be allowed amongst citizens and police. All those caught with firearms will be tried For crimes against humanity.

the most important thing is that these men and women pass a a fire arms safety class. A back-round check would be helpful, but many people have gone through treatment for addictions and various mental health issues. In some ways, denying a fire-arm to a person with a backround of addiction and mental health issues would be a threat to their own safety.

The government can check for criminal record or mental illness, nothing else. And all restrictions on honest Americans carrying concealed or unconcealed guns, knives, swords, flame throwers, assault weapons, ect... should be done away wit has a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Depends on what is meant by "pass." We require driver's licenses in order to operate a vehicle on public roads and fishing licenses to fish in public waters, these checks are no more intrusive. However, fishing and driving are not constitutionally protected as is the right to bear arms.

Gun control is not measured by a safety or background checks. Mental status should be tested often. Permits have a price tag. Both should be done yearly...continuing educational mandatory as well. Officers need to calm down, injur not to kill.

Other than for hunting, I don't see a need for anyone to own a gun of any kind. Outside the possibility of banning such guns entirely, I think stringent background and safety checks and extensive training are imperative.

YES !!! And public records and "private" records must be known by the decision makers , those who grant the gun ownership licenses . And the criminals and the "semi-insane" should never own a gun .. nor a knife ?

Every person purchasing a gun should be required to pass a psychological test to make sure they are mentally and physchology sound or healthy that would prevent their use guns for irrational reasons.

Any one should be able to carry a firearm that has a GPS chip associated with their social security number. Ammunition should be monitored, controlled and astronomically priced and require weekly audits