Wilson County News
Commentaries header
Wilson County News • 1012 C St • Floresville • TX • 78114 • Ph: 830-216-4519 • Fax: 830-393-3219 • Email:
Friday, Aug 1, 2014
Login
Not a subscriber? Click here.
Are you a WCN subscriber?
Set up your password.

 
E-Mail
Password
  Remember me
 
  Forgot password?
La Vernia News
Google
Google

Preview the Paper
Preview this week's Paper

Commentaries

The Absurdity of “Universal” Background Checks




E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story

Disclaimer:
The author of this entry is responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Wilson County News or wilsoncountynews.com.
April 10, 2013 | 2302 views | 11 comments

By Sheldon Richman

Those who favor “universal” background checks on gun buyers make some ridiculous arguments. For example, opponents correctly point out that gun buyers with criminal intent will always find channels that require no background check. Gunrunning is among the oldest professions, and the black market will always be with us. Thus the promise of universal background checks -- even if that were a legitimate government activity -- is a fraud, because universality can’t possibly be achieved.

Supporters, however, challenge this argument by contending that it proves too much: If requiring background checks is futile as a crime-fighting measure, they ask, why should we have laws against murder, rape, battery, and robbery? Those laws will never stop everyone from committing a crime, so what’s the point?

This argument is flawed. Let’s remember that the background-check requirement is intended, prophylactically, to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm to others. In contrast, the prohibition against murder and other forms of aggression is intended, retrospectively, to legitimate the apprehension and prosecution of people who have committed offenses against person and property. Yes, deterrence is also intended, but the main objective is to permit action after the fact.

Supporters of background checks may respond that a “universal” requirement would permit the government to go after those who have used guns aggressively. But this argument has no force whatever, simply because if someone commits aggression with a gun, the government already has grounds to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrator. What value is there in being able to charge a suspected mass murderer with illegal possession of a gun as well?

The practical argument for mandated background checks depends solely on its potential for keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them to commit crimes. (However, it would not have stopped Adam Lanza in Newtown or other mass murderers.) On that ground the argument fails, because people with criminal intent will find ways to buy guns that do not require a check. Proponents of background checks seem to think that a government decree will dry up the black market. But why would it? Sales will go on beyond the government’s ability to monitor them. Out of sight, out of government control.

Proponents also mock those who predict that so-called universal background checks will lead to gun registration and confiscation. But this is not an outlandish fear. (The ACLU shares it.) Since guns will continue to be bought and sold without background checks, a national registry is the likely next step in the crusade to deter such transfers. The civil-liberties implications are harrowing.

Thus the case against mandating “universal” background checks withstands scrutiny. This measure would not keep criminally minded people from acquiring guns, but it would give a false sense of security to the public by promising something they cannot deliver. What will the public, which favors background checks, call for after the next atrocity? A total prohibition on guns and confiscation?

While it wouldn't prevent crime, a background-check law could impede persons without criminal intent from obtaining firearms for self-defense. Many law-abiding people don’t buy a gun until they’ve been threatened -- a woman by her estranged husband, for example -- and they will be reluctant to buy one outside the law. (Someone with a conviction for a felony drug charge or other victimless crime cannot legally possess a gun. Why such people should be barred from an effective means of self-defense is a mystery that ought to be explained.)

This criticism of so-called universal background checks demonstrates the futility of the proposal. A more specifically moral (and libertarian) criticism is that mere possession of a firearm entails no aggression whatever, regardless of a person’s background, and therefore should not be prohibited. Government may not properly interfere with someone because he might commit a crime. (Of course businesses owners have a right to deny entry to people with guns -- just as gun owners have a right to patronize other businesses.)

But, some will say, isn’t a requirement for background checks worthwhile if it might save one innocent life? And what if the requirement might cost one innocent life? Is one innocent life more valuable than another?

Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Va.
 
« Previous Blog Entry (April 10, 2013)
 


Your Opinions and Comments
 
PRAIRIE GROUCH  
GRAND PRAIRIE TX  
April 13, 2013 2:51pm
 
 
Puzzled......According to data on murders in 2009,
an assault rifle would certainly be the preferred
firearm as fewer people were killed with those than
with any other ... Read More Read More
 
 
Puzzled  
Wilson Co.  
April 13, 2013 10:52am
 
 
If 4th Generation were my neighbor, I would hope that a background check would prevent her from buying a gun. As mean spirited as she is, the last thing she needs is a gun...particularly ... Read More Read More
 
 
PRAIRIE GROUCH  
GRAND PRAIRIE TX  
April 13, 2013 9:40am
 
 
Rodolfo.....You mentioned large capacity clips in
your comments. I suggest you do a bit of research
and find out the difference between clips and
magazines.
 
 
Harold  
Equatorial Guinea, West Africa  
April 13, 2013 2:44am
 
 
Rudy,
Read "The Federalist Papers" and you will see how wrong you are. The founding fathers left us guidelines on how they wanted us to "interpret" ... Read More Read More
 
 
PRAIRIE GROUCH  
GRAND PRAIRIE TX  
April 12, 2013 7:02pm
 
 
Rodolfo.....Figures from Table 311, the US Census
Statistical Abstract.
2009 Murders by weapon used. Partial list
l. Handguns......6503
2. Rifles........352
3. Shotguns......424
4. ... Read More Read More
 
 
PRAIRIE GROUCH  
GRAND PRAIRIE TX  
April 12, 2013 6:00pm
 
 
Rodolfo.....I just venturing a wild guess that you
might be a Democrat who with your fellow gun control
advocate along with President Obama are responsible for
more gun ... Read More Read More
 
 
squawk box  
Pandora, Tx  
April 12, 2013 4:37pm
 
 
Rodolfo...Please point out the difference between
the so called semiautomatic assault rifles and
a semiautomatic hunting rifle. Only a small percentage
of murders had ... Read More Read More
 
 
Publius Valerius Publicola  
Rome, Tx.  
April 12, 2013 2:12pm
 
 
I bought a gun at a gun show in San Antonio several years ago. They did a background check before I could get the gun. Sounds like they already do background checks at gun ... Read More Read More
 
 
The Marcelina Muse  
Dry Tank, TX  
April 12, 2013 1:52pm
 
 
Any weapon, gun, knife, baseball bat, anything used to assault someone is an assault weapon. Weapons used in war, true assault wepons, are capable of fully automatic fire. ... Read More Read More
 
 
Bob Pritts  
St Hedwig, TX  
April 11, 2013 3:26pm
 
 
Rodolfo,

"Locks are put on doors and gates to keep honest people honest"

If there were a law to determine who should own a gun, you would be the first one ... Read More Read More
 

Share your comment or opinion on this story!


You must be logged in to post comments:



Other Commentaries



Commentaries


Commentaries page govtrack.us
Commentaries who represents me?
 
^Top
  Copyright © 2014 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.
^Top