Hi Tracy

but there is also no need for evidence of training ? is that correct? I understand that you background involves that sort of training. How do you feel about the ability of untrained individuals to buy weapons .

Also background checks are in some ways pointless as I assume a criminal would have taken steps to ensure that they pass the checks before they try to buy a gun with fake id etc.


>Just to give a picture of what is involved here (not to promote or refute), after 9/11 ocurred and the new HomeLand Security rules were put into place, there was a backlog of 6 years worth of background checks pending for government workers alone. That did not take into account any other pending background checks for childcare workers, teachers, et al.
>
>The real problem is the background checks do not disclose private information unless the individual has committed a crime (except for classified access clearances of course in which case it covers EVERYTHING). For instance, if you received mental health counseling, it would not be there. If you were picked up for stalking but never prosecuted it would not be there. That is of course, to protect those innocent but accused.
>
>
>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/from/ET/
>>>
>>>Since he was never prosecuted for any crime, he was able to purchase the weapons. However, there is ample evidence that he was mentally ill... This article doesn't mention his English teacher contacting the police earlier due to disturbing writings (that was on morning news)
>>
>>As you seem very reluctant to ban guns in the US I would have thought additional tax on them could be used to pay for additional checking of the buyer and of their justification for buying a gun.
>>
>>Nick