Precisely. How can some idiotic check up prevent bad people getting guns? That argument has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.

I was thinking that it would just be a one time thing when applying for a gun permit. Not constant checkups.

The criteria that would prohibit someone from owning a gun would be so ridiculously rare, it's a non-issue. Anger issues is the most common, but even people with anger issues are seldom committing crimes.

Even so, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Simply having the procedures in place will reduce the amount of guns out there, since people won't want to go through with it unless they really want to own a gun.

I agree that it's not the legal gun owners committing crimes, but it is still a small factor from them as well.

What we need is better control over the illegal guns out there, for the most part.

I realize that term is what many Americans use, however I do infact find it offensive, I would prefer if you used something along the lines of hadicapped.

Offensive or no...that's what's in the DSM. I don't think the word itself is offensive, although it can be used in offensive ways.

Perhaps I'm not following, but how does one know if someone is reasonably stable to own a gun if there is no primary background check.

Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).

People who are depressed aren't necisarily going to commit suicide. If a depressed person goes out of their way to get tested so they can buy a gun to kill themselves with, they will not act suicidal while being tested.

Was more of thinking risk factors, such as previous suicide attempts and bipolar disorder. Not a stupid question, "are you depressed" or something.

That's like asking if someone lies...

Tests can't reveal intentions.

But background checks can reveal things about people, such as their judgement, tendencies to get into violent situations, how responsible they are, things like that.

Requiring people to go through tests before they're allowed to buy a gun would be as useful as the TSA, and that's to say, not useful at all.

TSA is a whole other matter. There's millions more people every day that they have to process than a one time background check.

We tell someone they need to be tested before they buy a gun. All they have to do is not talk about killing anyone and they pass. Let's be honest, we might as well hand them a piece of paper and ask, "Do you plan on killing yourself or others?" and have a check box  yes or no.

We have different ideas of what said test/background check includes then. A pitiful excuse for bureaucracy like that I would argue against too.

We have different ideas of what said test/background check includes then.

if they think the questions are straight and all only takes 10 mins. then i understand they think it wont help. that would be just stupid and ofcours 99% will pass such a test/background check.

@noname
you asked a few pages ago why doctors would report if someone's family members had guns. 
The answer is because when a doctor suspects that someone poses a danger to themselves or others, part of the assessment is to determine 'access to lethal means.'  Obviously, guns in the home represents access to lethal means.  That is why they would have to ask, then doctors become mandated reporters and have to report this information to the authorities.  Thats just the way it is.  Its whats known as 'limits of confidentiality.' 

In response to your skeptisim about a check up or evaluation of some sort as a gateway to gun purchasing:  what about if it included a drug test? 

Also, you mentioned anger problems and crimes.   Crimes are very, very frequently committed by people with anger problems.  Not all people with anger problems commit crimes, but crimes are committed by people with anger problems.   If you need proof of that, even though it seems incredibly common sense to me, look at the mental illness rates in youth and adult penal institutions, its overwhelming.  And personally, I have worked with a lot of parolees, and they are an angry angry bunch.

A huge part of the gun control problem in this country is black/grey market and illegal gun sales.  Politicians funded by the NRA wrote legislation to completely declaw the AFT (bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms).  The ATF has had the same number of agents for a really long time despite an exponential growth in their job duties.  They currently have enough staff to check up on gun retailers once ever 17 years!  The ATF hasn't even had a full-time director is 6 years.  Thanks republicans and the NRA. 
Ironically, it is the NRA and those same politicians they funded, who are now saying, in an effort to prevent any further gun control measures, that we should simply enforce the existing laws and not write new ones.  However, it is the legislation THEY wrote that IS CURRENTLY preventing the existing laws from being enforced!
Its just a game to them.  Meanwhile tens of thousands of people in this country are shot and killed every year.

What we need is some common sense!
Lets start with this:  There is currently no federal law prohibiting the sale of firearms to people who are intoxicated!  Who besides the NRA and cletus (the moonshining redneck from the simpsons) would object to that?!
C'mon man!

Such a large portion of gun crimes are criminal on criminal.

Right, so probably illegal guns, so if guns were even slightly harder to buy, maybe one or two hoops to jump through, the trickle down to the illegal gun market would slow down.  Its also very relevant to the extreme violence in the drug cartel wars.  They are buying all of the guns they use from US retailers.  I don't see why is such a bad thing to make getting those guns just a little bit more difficult. 
I think the everyday gun violence that has become commonplace is more important to deal with than the mass shootings that get media coverage.  And the way to do that is a complete holistic approach that treats the root causes of the violence not just the symptoms.  Making guns harder to get is just one way.  It won't solve all the problems but if it denies one person from getting a gun that will kill an innocent person, and causes only minor inconveniences to some people, shouldn't we do it?

How often do intoxicated people buy guns and go on a shooting spree the same night? Is it really an issue worth addressing?

Think about the kind of person who would try to buy a gun while drunk.  Think about the decision making process of a drunk person period.  Drunk people, or people on drugs, have impaired decision-making functioning.  For the same reason they shouldn't operate heavy machinery, drive a car, juggle chain saws, or make important life decisions, they shouldn't be able to decide to buy a gun.  And seriously?  a Spree?  If they shoot one person is that not bad enough?

But, what would testing these people accomplish? Let's say we do test everyone, what do we do with the people who have anger issues? Do we refuse them the right to buy a gun?

I'm not necessarily advocating that, I was just responding to the previous anger comment.  I'm not in favor of making the medical/mental health profession the gatekeepers for gun ownership.