Eliminating background checks will reduce crime?

[monotonous_iterancy]

Recently I had an epiphany about background checks. It seems that they are accepted by just about all gun organizations as "reasonable". It seems intuitive, after all, "we don't want criminals to have guns". Anti-gun folks use this as an excuse to make hay about "gun show loopholes" and other fictional problems.

However, wouldn't eliminating background checks entirely reduce crime and help solve them? If felons are barred from background checks, then logically they will go underground to get their weapons, many of which will probably be stolen.

But, if anyone at all can buy from an established shop, and that gun is later used in a crime, the buyer can still be identified through sales receipts, video footage, and similar things. Remember, long before the internet, Lee Harvey Oswald's gun was traced back to him within three days, long before the internet. And he bought his gun through the mail.

Does it make sense that in addition to eliminating paperwork, getting rid of background checks will also reduce crime?

 

[Robert]

Well that's because LHO was the patsy for the CIA... (I kid, I kid)

 

[Thermactor]

That's an interesting take. Sort of like legalizing some soft drugs to eliminate the illicit drug trade.

 

[g.willikers]

What, and render all those bureaucrats unemployed?

 

[stchman]

The OP has some valid points, but it will never happen. There are too many folks out there (politicians, anti-2A, etc.) that feel background checks work. If you tell them the vast majority of criminals DON'T buy their guns at Cabela's, Bass Pro, Dick's, LGS, the think you are just some gun crazy nutjob.

 

[Hunterdad]

I think for the most part, anyone wanting to commit a crime with a gun, isn't the type of person to buy one legally knowing it can come back to them.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

The OP has some valid points, but it will never happen. There are too many folks out there (politicians, anti-2A, etc.) that feel background checks work. If you tell them the vast majority of criminals DON'T buy their guns at Cabela's, Bass Pro, Dick's, LGS, the think you are just some gun crazy nutjob.

Heck, there are a lot of pro-2A people who think background checks are useful. But when potential criminals are pushed out of the light, they go into the dark. Eliminating background checks will shine a light on things, and when that happens, problems get better.

The real question is what would happen to the black market.

 

[jdub3]

Interesting thoughts. I am opposed to background checks on the grounds that 2A says "shall not be infringed" and background checks are an obvious infringement.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

I think for the most part, anyone wanting to commit a crime with a gun, isn't the type of person to buy one legally knowing it can come back to them.

True, but a career criminal would probably have to pay a much higher price for an illegal firearm when even he could walk into a shop and buy one, right?

For the criminal, the question would then be price and convenience, vs. secrecy and danger.

The truth is, I doubt total and unfettered freedom to manufacture and sell guns without question will completely eliminate the secrecy surrounding the criminal market. Yet we also know that harsh, draconian measures fail to eliminate it all the same. China is an authoritarian police state, and even they have unapproved trade and even manufacturing.

Given the choices, far better to err on the side of freedom.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

RKBA and the right to vote should have similar ID and background requirements.

Either stiffen the ID and background requirements for voting or loosen them for RKBA. Rights are rights.

 

[pjeski]

I'm not sure voting is as much a right as a privilege and a duty.

 

[MedWheeler]

The OP's mind is laboring under the false assumption that UBCs, as well as other gun-control laws, are for crime reduction.

Gun control has never been about public safety.

 

[Field Tester]

Well that's because LHO was the patsy for the CIA... (I kid, I kid)

You're right, Woody Harrelson's dad was the trigger man

 

[danez71]

I think for the most part, anyone wanting to commit a crime with a gun, isn't the type of person to buy one legally knowing it can come back to them.

Yep.

Ive often said that anyone that's willing to go murder someone doesn't care if he's buying the gun on the black market or if he's breaking the law with a "high cap mag".

 

[tactikel]

A criminal would likely purchase a gun that had no paper trail to him even if it was more costly.

 

[Mousegun]

A criminal would likely purchase a gun that had no paper trail to him even if it was more costly.

I too agree with this statement.

 

[evan price]

Well, since anybody that steals a gun will certainly get a background check performed on themselves before stealing a gun, this will TOTALLY solve all gun crime as we know it.

 

[Wyatt]

I'm not for more background checks, but I wonder if licensing the individual would be a better solution. The FFl calls in your DL number or a firearms license (optional) to check your status as is the current process! I know some would be against a license, but it would be the same info as on the 4473. In exchange, there would be no forms, no recording/registration of the weapon purchased (liked some states) and prohibited people are stopped from purchasing. It SHOULD satisfy those groups who says they are only concerned about criminals buying guns and not registration. At the same time it would protect gun buyers who worry about government record keeping. I'm sure there would be a few hurdles to overcome, but I think it could work.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Eliminating background checks will reduce crime?

No. Neither would making them more stringent, banning more weapons or removing restrictions on restricted weapons, etc.

Socio-economic factors drive crime, not guns. Making it easier or more difficult to buy/own/carry firearms has never had an affect on crime that couldn't be more easily attributed to other factors.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'm not for more background checks, but I wonder if licensing the individual would be a better solution. The FFl calls in your DL number or a firearms license (optional) to check your status as is the current process! I know some would be against a license, but it would be the same info as on the 4473. In exchange, there would be no forms, no recording/registration of the weapon purchased (liked some states) and prohibited people are stopped from purchasing. It SHOULD satisfy those groups who says they are only concerned about criminals buying guns and not registration. At the same time it would protect gun buyers who worry about government record keeping. I'm sure there would be a few hurdles to overcome, but I think it could work.

It could because in some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check as you say. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Brady bill. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks. The fed isn't too picky about how you run a BC or even how often. Once should be enough. If my CPL is good for 5 years then a BC should be good for that long unless my CPL is revoked.

Running a BC on every sale is not honestly addressing the problem but I think it's popular because the state wants the revenue. The AG crowd also likes it because they know the cost is onerous.

When a state trooper pulls you over and they run your DL, your CPL shows up. That is a state LE database but another database could be built for a CPL query by a ffl holder. I think some states already do that.

You don't need BC's to purchase a firearm. You should just need to scan your drivers license with the correct endorsement. No endorsement, no sale.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

I'm not for more background checks, but I wonder if licensing the individual would be a better solution. The FFl calls in your DL number or a firearms license (optional) to check your status as is the current process! I know some would be against a license, but it would be the same info as on the 4473. In exchange, there would be no forms, no recording/registration of the weapon purchased (liked some states) and prohibited people are stopped from purchasing.

So in other words, your driver's license is turned into a national ID card of sorts? No thank you. What if someone doesn't have a DL? Why should they have to get a firearms license? How can firearms be a right when it requires a license?

To license is to ask permission. To permit is to control. It seems like a more dangerous thing than what we have now.

No. Neither would making them more stringent, banning more weapons or removing restrictions on restricted weapons, etc.

Socio-economic factors drive crime, not guns. Making it easier or more difficult to buy/own/carry firearms has never had an affect on crime that couldn't be more easily attributed to other factors.

You're absolutely right. I didn't mean that guns cause crime. What I was trying to say was that if a crime in committed with a gun, if it is bought in open day-light, it can be linked to the person who bought it - not through registration or numbers - but simply through the social forces existing when something is done in open society, as opposed to a secret black market.

Certainly crimes were solved before records were kept and guns had mandatory serial numbers. It just seems that making legitimate sellers do background checks can do more harm than good.

 

[CWL]

Why would it reduce crime?

Even if a crime gun can be found & then traced to the owner (not as easy as you are assuming), wouldn't that just contribute to solving a crime, and not actually reducing crime itself?

Still doesn't deal with stolen guns.

 

[gripper]

Due to the ever expanding definition of " prohibited person "( not all who are violent, or even " felons") I am opposed to " background checks". Someone has already proven themselves unworthy of living around other people? Why, then; are they still walking around unencumbered? Finished their sentence/ probation/ parole? If ALL rights are not restored, does this mean " rehabilitation " is a polite fiction?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The simple answer, and likely the least expensive, is to keep those who can't be trusted with arms locked up or institutionalized or under 100% guardianship or executed. The "A" part of the ATF goes away, no need to obtain and maintain a FFL to sell guns, much less recidivism, and a lot more incentive to behave.

Woody

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I'm not sure voting is as much a right as a privilege and a duty.

Four different amendments to the Constitution, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th all use the phrase, "The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged......"