The Problem of Universal Background Checks.

[GardoneVT]

A recent discussion I've had on campus has uncovered a potentially serious weakness for our side of the debate . Much has been said about I-594 passing in WA , but what hasn't been said is how ignorant the typical voter is on gun law knowledge.

We take that kind of knowledge for granted as gun owners as , well, we own guns. The typical voter may not have bought a gun recently , or the last time they did they had to do the 4473 process . The concept of buying a gun without that kind of documentation sounds like madness to the uninitiated, especially when nearly all of us with professional jobs had to undergo a criminal background check to get hired.

How do we overcome that perception?

[TGS]

A recent discussion I've had on campus has uncovered a potentially serious weakness for our side of the debate . Much has been said about I-594 passing in WA , but what hasn't been said is how ignorant the typical voter is on gun law knowledge.

We take that kind of knowledge for granted as gun owners as , well, we own guns. The typical voter may not have bought a gun recently , or the last time they did they had to do the 4473 process . The concept of buying a gun without that kind of documentation sounds like madness to the uninitiated, especially when nearly all of us with professional jobs had to undergo a criminal background check to get hired.

How do we overcome that perception?

My response is usually the following:

Criminals are called criminals because they don't follow the law. Placing restrictions on private sales will not influence the trade of guns between criminals at all, because they are already trading guns illegally and will continue to do so regardless if you require law-abiding citizens to jump through however many hoops you please. Universal background checks for guns make about as much sense as requiring universal background checks for car sales at chop shops, drug sales on the corner, or an entertainment system that fell off the back of the truck. It's called the black market for a reason; it's illegal, and they circumvent the law.

If the person says I'm full of crap, I then ask them to tell me why two criminals trading guns would say, "oh shit, Joey. They just instituted universal checks. We can't do this anymore. We have to go get a background check done now," instead of continuing the transaction as they normally would.

If they throw out the bit about how ridiculous it is for you to buy a gun without a background check but you need one for a job, I say, "Oh, ok. So you're in favor of requiring background checks for under-the-table and/or illegal jobs? That will work out well, right?"

Usually at some point they either, 1) Stand there with their mouth open, 2) Walk away in anger, or 3) say, "Oh, well, I guess you're right."

[Totem Polar]

Coming from the perspective of a WA resident, I don't think we do. Short of taking every man, woman, and child we know the range and getting them hooked, I think we're SOL on that issue. JMO.

[JV_]

Placing restrictions on private sales will not influence the trade of guns between criminals at all, because they are already trading guns illegally and will continue to do so regardless if you require law-abiding citizens to jump through however many hoops you please.

I'm not willing to say something so absolute.

If guns are so easy for felons to get and trade, why do some convicted felons try to buy guns from FFLs? It's not that uncommon.

[TGS]

I'm not willing to say something so absolute.

If guns are so easy for felons to get and trade, why do some convicted felons try to buy guns from FFLs? It's not that uncommon.

Irrelevant. The topic concerns people (not just convicts) buying guns through unregulated channels for the purpose of committing crimes.

There is no enforcement mechanism for universal background checks within the criminal paradigm, thus it is pointless to require it.

If anyone thinks it will curb the purchase of firearms through normalized private venues, like VAGuntrader.com, I present to you the effects of Prohibition and the War on Drugs on the illegal trade which those laws intended to regulate. If there is a need, the black market will fill it. We will legitimize a structured illegal arms market for the casual criminal, if you will.

[joshs]

If guns are so easy for felons to get and trade, why do some convicted felons try to buy guns from FFLs? It's not that uncommon.

I have no data on this, but I think the general reason is that the person doesn't know that they're prohibited, which is likely one of the reasons that 90+% of NICS denials do not result in a prosecution.

[JV_]

Irrelevant.

I don't think so. If background checks stop felons from buying guns, requiring them for more possible transactions seems like a logical step for a lot of people. It doesn't have to be a foolproof proposition, it just needs to stop a couple more guns from getting in to the hands of the wrong people.

No law or restriction will ever stop a criminal that's dedicated. But, it might stop some that are less dedicated, and that's what they're trying to stop.

[JV_]

90+% of NICS denials do not result in a prosecution.

That's an interesting data point.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

UBCs have surface validity and thus are appealing to most.

There are two separate issues that appear in the UBC debate. One is the prevention of what we think of as economic, poverty, drug usage, bad neighborhood crime. It's probably the case that UBCs won't touch those crime rates.

The second issue is that UBCs are suggested to stop mentally ill folks from easily acquiring firearms. NICS check and enhanced state reporting are seen as preventive. That might have stopped VT and Cho and perhaps the Gabby Gifford's shooter. It ties in with legislation like the SAFE act. While some rampagers were not in the systems at all, it is argued that blocking those in the system would stop them as they might not be able to manage an illegal sale. That is an empirical question.

Currrently, such draconian mental health reporting is suspect in the professional literature. However, I just wanted to point out a rationale used for UBCs other than the standard economic felon.

[Tamara]

UBCs have surface validity and thus are appealing to most.

As our president would say, they have good optics.

They soundbite really really well, and our side has been trying to refute that soundbite with charts and tables, and that's not a winning strategy in the environment of the public ballot initiative.