Universal background check - what are the cons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joss

Joss

Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
7,353
All,

What are the arguments against universal background checks for people buying firearms?

Thanks,

JD
 
A lot of people don't like the idea because traditionally Americans have always been able to sell their firearms back and forth to individuals at their own will, and if government decided to make certain types of firearms illegal they would have a quick and easy list of people they need to pay a visit to. I don't oppose the idea, but the only way i see it working is if the background checks are completely free, or else people would just ignore the idea and trade back and forth without paying the fee for the background check.
 
If you want to know what can happen just look up "1972 Temporary Custody Order and Pistols in Irish firearms law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_po...stody_Order_and_Pistols_in_Irish_firearms_law
My own government has introduced strict firearm laws and has been prosecuting people since who did not turned in their licensed firearms for destruction, when they didn't comply with the new draconian gun laws (Belgium).
Do be so stupid in thinking "it will never happen", it will if they want to.
 
Sounds like trouble to me as it will become a list that will be rife with errors like the current no fly list. The government would just create more bureaucracy, carve out certain parts or functions for contracts to their supporters and it will be inaccurate. That is before you get to the issue of firearms being seized as laws change etc. I think it would end up like the TSA, badly done, expensive and useless.
 
Presently, we have a choice when purchacing a firearm. We can purchace from a FFL dealer
and submit to a background check, or purchace from another individual and not have a
background check. That pretty much makes the check voluntary.
Universal background checks could eliminate that choice.
 
Last edited:
Here's one big "con" as I see it. Universal background checks, like "assault weapon" bans, etc. are being touted as "necessary" gun control for public safety.

Yet universal background checks would have done absolutely nothing to stop Sandy Hook. Or Columbine. Or Aurora. Or most of the other mass shootings that have occurred in the last several decades.

So if we want to have a rational discussion regarding the relative pros/cons of a universal background check system, then let's, as a society, have that discussion. But as long as the premise is that this is a step which will prevent madmen bent on destructive acts, we are not starting from a rational basis - i.e, one that is borne out by history and the facts.
 
The con I see is an overwhelmed and slow or ineffective system. If they had a system that is effective and instantaneous I wouldn't mind. That also should eliminate any waiting period if an individual is cleared for purchase immediately. I worry about glitches like with the no-fly list that confuse one person for another. This will take a lot of funding as well and where is that coming from?
 
Joss,

I highly suggest that you offer an explanation or thoughts of your own simply because this post has no place in Community and belongs in Political. If I move it now you would be in violation of the Political Arena rules. Please edit your post to reflect your views to comply with the PA Forum.
 
My thoughts is that it seems like a reasonable step. It seems weird that we can sell guns to each others with fewer checks than we do on cars. Although I oppose restrictions on gun types, ammo, and magazines, I don't think we should be able to sell guns to people who shouldn't have them, be they criminals or crazies. With this said, I've never owned a gun in my life, and before adopting this position for good I would like to understand the other side of the issue.
 
Joss, please reopen this topic in the Political Arena combining your two posts. It is an interesting topic and would fit well enough there, but cannot be moved with registered users' posts intact. I would like to reply to your questions, but cannot do so in this forum.
 
1. the first concern that raises antenna is whether background checks will be used to make de facto registration lists. Some people don't want the govt knowing what they have, so that the govt can't then target them specifically with increasing measures. The 2nd amendment is supposed to enable a citizen militia to preserve a free state, in the event the govt attempts to revert from democracy to tyranny, and registration or other means to make a "firearms owners census" undercut the ability to preserve arms outside the view of govt. That said, it's not clear that individual check results would be preserved, currently they are not for commercial sales but the anti-gunners don't like that.

2. which ties in with the question, how would it work? How do I prove that I did a background check on a person before selling them a gun? Either I or the govt needs to keep a record to prove it. Gun shops fill out a form and are trusted to do so but the results aren't kept. Will the govt place the same trust in private sales, i.e. not require any verification of actual compliance?

3. Or will the govt require private gun sales to occur at a gun store with verification by the store employee, which would add service charges and also allow the govt to collect taxes on the sale, and make it much more inconvenient for the buyer/seller. Plus potentially requiring a waiting period after payment for transfer of the gun. Also currently private sales on dealer property is a felony so that would have to be changed.

It could potentially be worked out to not incur significant additional burdens on private citizen transactions. But that seems unlikely, and what is especially irksome is that the burdens are being imposed to solve an essentially nonexistent problem. There is not much evidence that legitimate private sales are responsible for a significant amount of criminal gun usage. Not in any of the recent mass shootings, and most guns used in crimes come from a very small set of dealers who specialize in selling to gang members. Also there are some individuals who specialize in "straw man" purchases, they buy dozens of guns a month and then sell them privately to gangbangers - but this is already illegal. Instituting a private sale background check won't prevent that, unless it is so incredibly burdensome and thorough that it adds all of the problems noted above to legit private sales. Then it might stop some straw man sales but . . .those are already illegal without the universal background check requirement and the govt is already able to enforce those laws!!! So it's creating a huge burden to create an unneccessary answer to a problem that already has an answer, that's just not being utilized.
 
Joss, this is an ongoing problem. We have strict rules for the Political Arena because of the bitterness and dysfunctional arguments we had there.

Spark restricted politics to the Arena to keep the bitterness quarantined and restricted it to paying members to eliminate trolls who simply re-registered when trolling was cost-free.

Now we insist on structure:

All political discussion belongs in the Political Arena.
You will need a paid membership to post there. That blocks 3 posters on this thread.

We have rules for political posts. Defend your position - If you post an article or make a statement, back it up with some commentary on what brought you to that. This isn't the Drudge Report. Posting a link or complete article without bothering to state your own position and why you think it is right or wrong will be viewed as a "link and run".

Tell us the story, in your own words.
Tell us what you think about it, maybe what we might do.
Give us a link, if possible an analysis of what the source's interests are.

Really not supposed to copy and paste huge blocks of text or just give us a link to a reading or viewing assignment.

We have rules to start a productive conversation. Tossing out partisan propaganda is counterproductive.
Without a thoughtful, intelligent introduction, we will not see a thoughtful, respectful response.

Current Events is not Politics Lite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top