With background checks in place the "bad guys" at the very least have to make a criminal effort to acquire a gun.
If you're a "bad guy" meaning a prohibited person, then attempting to acquire a gun IS A CRIMINAL ACT!!!
And, if you think the bad guys are going to spend their "hard won" (stolen/illegal) cash on buying a gun at retail, I think you're mistaken.
Sure, a few idiots probably will, IF they have the money. But I'm thinking even the dumbest bad guys will pay $200 to some crackhead in an alley for a stolen gun before they will pay $6-800 or more at a dealer, even if there was no background check. That's what they did before background checks became law, and that's what they are STILL DOING, though the cash prices have gone up, over the years...
So why would we scrap the checks?
Start by doing an
honest cost/benefit analysis. And really look at what we get for the money spent, not what is claimed by proponents of the current system, and not at things that cannot be measured.
OK, I get that no system is, or can be, 100% effective and efficient. I'm not talking about people who "slip through the cracks", I'm talking about broad principles being lied about, downplayed, or just outright ignored.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the background check idea does not work, to a degree, what I'm saying is that the CANNOT work to the degree we were promised, and that even when it does work, the people running our government virtually never prosecute.
That record is clear. Tens of thousands of denials, only resulting in a few dozen prosecutions, and only around a third of those actually ending in convictions does not fill me with confidence that the system is doing anything worthwhile. The other side thinks denying firearms IS a worthwhile purpose, but strangely doesn't seem to care about the violation of law involved.
I personally heard the (then) sitting Vice President of the United States (Biden), when asked why the government so seldom prosecutes the crime of illegally attempting to acquire a firearm, he directly stated "We don't have time for that".
Here's a point which is usually either ignored or downplayed by background check advocates.
NO background check can stop someone who does not have a disqualifying background. Ever.
Time after time, we get told how the evil psychotic killer obtained their guns legally. Which is true, but tis said that way to imply the legal requirements are too lax, and conveniently leaves the fact that the evil psychotic killer was NOT an evil psychotic killer at the time they legally bought the guns, unsaid.
After a horrific shooting, 20/20 hindsight goes back and points at this, and that, and everyone recognizes NOW that "oh, that person should never have been allowed a gun..." "the system failed", etc.
Yes, there have been a very few cases where the system actually failed. But in general all the "failures" that result in some nutcase getting a gun and committing havoc happened because the system worked, and did
exactly what it was built to do.
Background checks are prior restraint on a Constitutionally protected right. What other Constitutionally protected right is restricted in that way??
We're all considered "guilty" until the system approves us. Guilty until proven innocent is not the way the rest of our system is supposed to work, and generally does. I find the automatic assumption of "guilt" insulting.
Another point where background checks cannot ever do anything to prevent a "bad guy" from having a gun, (and we're ALL bad guys, automatically..) is when they already have a gun.
How does it protect anyone from harm to require a check to be run on a 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 15th, or 45th gun purchase?? (and everyone in between?)
It doesn't. It's a waste of effort IF the goal is as stated, to protect people from harm. The most it can do is see if the legal status of the purchaser has changed. That can ensure compliance with the law, but it protects no one.
SO, what we have is a system that can't, and never could do what we were promised, is going to have people who slip through the cracks anyway, and cannot even touch people who are not criminals, until after they commit a criminal act (such as a shooting). AND one where the government most often does not bother to prosecute when it is violated.
Add in the ever present risk that some clerical error can put otherwise blameless citizens on a "prohibited" list, and the hassle and cost that correcting that can take.
Balance all that (and more) against the $ the system takes to run it. Are we really getting a benefit for the cost??
The degree to which background checks work as a deterrent can't be measured.
I agree. There is, and can be no data base of people saying "I didn't commit mass murder because there was a background check, and that stopped me."
SO, its something that can't be measured. And some people will go from there, saying "if it saves just one life...." then its worth it. But they can't ever point to the one life (or more) that it saved.
How about the other side of the coin? WHAT IF it
costs "just one life"??
What if someone who was threatened was legally delayed or denied a firearm to defend themselves with, and is murdered as a result of not being able to defend themselves?
What if that person was your daughter??
I know that possession of a defensive firearm alone is no guarantee of success, but the lack of one, because the government denies it, goes a LONG way to aiding the success of the attacker.
SO, considering that both "saving a life" and "costing a life" are both equally unquantifiable, I'd say those arguments cancel each other out.
Also, there is the added complication of badly written laws below the federal level (currently). I know of one state which passed a background check law that was so badly written that the state law enforcement agencies have refused to enforce it (until it is further clarified). Been a few years now, and so far, that clarification has not been delivered.
So, we have a flawed system, which doesn't deliver quantifiable benefits, costs money to run, and ticks off lots of good people when it "glitches".
Is that a net benefit to us?? I don't think so.
