I'm not against expanded background checks but where do we draw the line in right to privacy? I don't see anything wrong with the background checks we have now when processed correctly. I believe I posted a stat earlier in this topic about the failures of enforcement of our current system.
Under current laws, if a background check reveals that your name is on the national terrorism watch list, you're still free to walk out of a gun dealership with a firearm in your hands — as long as you don't have a criminal or mental health record.
Data from the Government Accountability Office show that between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists tried to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times. They succeeded in more than 90 percent of those cases, or 1,321 times.
The other issue is the lack of prosecuting people who lie on their background checks and still are able to buy the firearm. Our biggest problem is not the laws it is enforcing them and funding the enforcement. We spend billions policing other countries and ignore our own. This is not a liberal/conservative difference its a failure by both. Just a little stat
2010:
72,659 denials
34,459 felony convictions/indictments
13,862 fugitives
44 prosecutions (0.06 percent of denials)
2009:
67,324 denials
32,652 felony convictions/indictments
11,341 fugitives
77 prosecutions (0.11 percent)
2008:
70,725 denials
39,526 felony convictions/indictments
9,464 fugitives
105 prosecutions (0.15 percent)
2007:
73,992 denials
23,703 felony convictions/indictments
4,803 fugitives
122 prosecutions (0.16 percent)
2006:
69,930 denials
25,259 felony convictions/indictments
4,235 fugitives
112 prosecutions (0.16 percent)
2005:
66,705 denials
36.8 percent felony convictions/indictments
5.3 percent fugitives
135 prosecutions (0.20 percent)
