The myth of stringent background checks - Alabama example

[RealityInSeattle]

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/01/gun_loophole_alabama_fails_to.html

Did the physical act of performing a background check happen. Yup.

Did it prevent the sale. Nope.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[safeinOhio]

2. Against the law to drive while stinking drunk

Stinking drunks still, sometimes get behind the wheel. The myth of stringent drunk driving laws. You might do better to call for more stringent mental health laws.

[slackmaster]

3. Bullshit - There's nothing wrong with the background check system

The problems in this case were:

A) The state of Alabama failing to report prohibited persons, and

B) The willingness of the asshole to lie on the federal paperwork when he bought a weapon.

Automatic Unrec for dishonesty.

That's three for RealityInSeattle so far today.

[rd_kent]

4. SO to the grabbers....loopohole=4th Amendemnt...I guess thats TWO rights you want to lose?

[rrneck]

5. What an amazing discovery.

The system failed to function perfectly because it is operated by imperfect human beings.

Keep that bar impossibly high though, it gives you something to complain about.

[Hangingon]

6. From the article...

"The instant background check run by the Bass Pro Shops store in Spanish Fort failed to flag Gluth, however, because Alabama reports only a tiny fraction of mental health commitments to a national database."

Alabama is a fault. Same as Virginia was in the VT shooter situation.

[rd_kent]

7. The MYTH that RealityInSeattle has a fucking clue at all......

[gorfle]

8. Fix that shit right away.

What this means is that we need more stringent reporting of disqualifying events to the NICS database.