Reciprocity Stops Crime, Background Checks Do Not | USCCA

I’m still amazed that some people just do not get the concept that background checks will not stop crime. Even some gun owners are saying, “What’s wrong with background checks?”


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/national-concealed-carry-reciprocity-stops-crime-background-checks-do-not/
4 Likes

An excellent walkthrough about why universal background checks won’t work. This is “common sense gun law.”

What I’d like to read is the argument against this. I just can’t imagine how it would even approach rationality. But the left doesn’t have rational argument anymore, instead they traffic in fear and division. While we here all strive to take emotion out of the equation, they work to make it the overriding issue.

3 Likes

Only a real idiot would argue against national reciprocity, and as MOST of us know, this country is in no short supply of idiots. The politicians play up to the overblown fears of those who obviously have an aversion to the right to defend one’s self or loved one. However, I don’t have a problem with National Gun Registration or background checks. Those who do oppose it either have some sort of agenda, are up to no good or they are not confident (or competent) in their own ability to use or possess firearms. They oppose use of firearms until they’re looking down the barrel of one or someone they love gets robbed, shot, or killed.

2 Likes

Thanks for your article Kevin. Hopefully the more knowledge put out there informing everyone of what may be coming will help us all in preserving our 2nd A rights and security.
J.W. Hood
Elk Mound, WI

2 Likes

Even in the anti gunners dream scenario of all legally owned firearms being confiscated and destroyed, there would still be millions of illegally owned firearms in the hands of criminals who would have a field day knowing all their victims were now defenseless.

5 Likes

Regarding @Brian_Keith’s comment: National Gun Registry was imposed by Hitler when he became the chancellor of Austria. Law abiding citizens flocked to register their guns. Then, when Hitler declared all private gun ownership illegal, it was an easy matter to send the SS to the homes who had registered their guns and confiscate them.

Gun registration is the first step to gun confiscation. Just say no.

4 Likes

An excellent article. Another consideration to why background checks won’t work is how do you background check stolen guns? Even the daily checking police state wouldn’t have any effect in this category of gun possession transfer.

3 Likes

A great article, but the entire idea of a gun registry completely collapses as soon as you realize it is actually very easy to make guns in your own home. $500 in 3D printing equipment and supplies and I can print a reliable lower receiver, even for an AR! If criminals can’t buy a gun, they’ll make one. If the French could make submachine guns while occupied by the Nazis, what hope does the federal government have?

3 Likes

Gary238 THANK YOU for replying succinctly to Brian Keith’s “I’m not opposed to national gun registry” post. History has its way of “revisiting” us WHEN WE ARE UNAWARE OF or INDIFFERENT TOWARD THE PAST.

3 Likes

USCCA Moderator. I just don’t understand how you can be a moderator of this site. The intent of background checks is NOT TO STOP ALL CRIME. It’s to prevent placing guns into the hands of unqualified (prohibited by law) individuals. If you want make this country safer, make damn sure only individuals who are qualified to own guns are allowed to purchase them.

2 Likes

Please enlighten us from your clear-visioned mountain top vantage. I can safely say we’ve all been awaiting your arrival to bring us out of the darkness. (@USCCA)

1 Like

Yes, this true, and every firearm I have sold was stolen from me. Oh, wait, I never sold any firearms, they were all lost in a tragic boating accident… :rofl:

Perfect reply. 1K :+1:

1 Like

Hi Dennis,

About two days ago, in our online community, I wrote about a premise on this subject, on which I agree with you. However, I think that “this” main string post on “Reciprocity”, would have been more closely related to my response.

I had written about this in our string titled, How Do You Help Guide This Tough Conversation? (link).

I used to believe in the very same ideas as those outlined by the author of the “Reciprocity” article, Kevin M., from the USCCA. He’s one of my favorite teachers on firearm education and safety. I also have great respect for the two gentlemen who opposed my views on the other string.

I accept that I’m in the minority with my stance. However, it’s because of my support in favor of us being able to legally bear arms, that I’m in favor of “certain” gun control, just not all. That’s why I propose not making blanket statements because that could hurt our cause.

From a research science view, just because an event or factor X occurs such as crime, does not mean that factor Y “gun control” caused it or prevented it.

Reason being, there are so many other variables. From high reliability science, which is practiced in the industries of nuclear power, commercial aviation, and healthcare, those remind us of the importance of reviewing countless studies, for validity, efficacy, which can withstand tests and scrutiny.

I had only taken a couple of courses on “research science”, so imagine those who are anti 2A, who have degrees in research science who can easily point out how certain correlations are not causal.

I’ll fight for our 2A rights, but I’d rather use different data, arguments, and strategies. A part of me believes we need to work with them, gain their ear, negotiate, so they see us as civilized, sophisticated, and that we too care about mitigating firearms from getting into the wrong hands (not to, will embolden them further).

For those who say if a criminal wants to hurt someone, he/she will find a way; that part of course anyone can understand, however, I just don’t want to be the one who gave him/her the gun. It reminds me about the true caliber of “other” people out there, where they are from, who they are, and what they are capable of.

I would be in favor of “limit” rules of firearms for former violent crime ex-felons, chronically mentally ill, and the developmentally or intellectually disabled. Remember when we had to take the car keys away from our beloved grandparents, and why. This is complex.

Look at the countless of posts about unsafe behavior at the range; So yes, education and training can improve the quality of our greater community. And who’s a better supporter of education and training than the USCCA.

Who else do we need to hear us? Mainstream society, who receive in the mail – actual legislative referendums, polls, and or actual ballot questions “if” they vote, asking them to help decide on gun laws in their region. How will they perceive us? How will the “quality” of our data be seen by them?

I’ve seen anti 2A literally cry in their testimony, how they want to walk the streets with their babies without the fear of bullets flying by them. How do I compete with that? Can we bring our families who also cry, describing how they were saved, or can live with less fear by us legally carrying our “arms”? I say yes, and that was my argument which silenced them.

One of my goals is to expand being able to “carry” into the workplace, and or have safes/lockers there for us who are not allowed to carry inside, so that when we walk home, or walk to our vehicles, we can “carry”.

Policies completely banning firearms, absolutely not; But certain rules, yes please. In caring about our community, my seeing us heading down a path which can hurt us, I want to help us, warn, and protect us. Thank you all, I’m with you brothers and sisters.

1 Like