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?”
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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… 
Perfect reply. 1K 
Hi Dennis, and welcome!
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.
Welp, I want to agree with Kevin, and I do regarding his thoughts on universal background checks and national reciprocity. But the latter isn’t any more of a panacea than “universal background checks” are.
A better solution would be mandatory sentencing for guys like Sheldon the Seller. It’s pretty simple: If your firearm is used in a crime, you better have reported it stolen before the crime was committed, or have paperwork proving that you sold it, else you end up in the Hooskow for a five to 10 as an accessory. Enforcement of that little hitch would quickly take away the luster of any premium Sheldon might have realized from his hobby Non-FFL business. It would also point the cops toward the perpetrators of gun crimes.
Likewise, anyone who possesses a stolen firearm or sells a stolen firearm should face the harshest mandatory minimums and have the opportunity for prolonged and intimate fellowship with the other denizens of Grey Stone College.
Such laws and actual enforcement of them would not require a national registry or an army of jackboots going door to door to verify whether everyone’s firearms were in their rightful. It would, however, require people to be responsible stewards of their firearms.
While it might seem intellectually satisfying on paper to give Robbie the sucking chest wound of Frontier Justice, the idea quickly loses its luster if you’ve talked to anyone who has actually had to take a human life. Shooting other people is difficult, regardless of the circumstances. If this concept is hard for someone to fathom, I recommend they read “On Killing” by Lt. Col Dave Grossman.
I can account for every firearm in my collection and I expect other responsible firearms owners to be able to do the same. The Second Amendment does not absolve anyone from basic responsibility and ethics. Those who are so careless that they don’t take basic measures to ensure that their firearms don’t end up in the wrong hands don’t have the basic maturity to own a firearm; neither does someone who would end up being a straw purchaser for a criminal or someone who is vacuous enough not to notice and report a missing/stolen firearm.
The Second Amendment is not a substitute for the police. Fear of tyranny is not a substitute for the rule of law. Emotionally charged hysteria is not a good reason to terminate a civil liberty; nor is it a good reason to rationalize one.
I hope I never have to deliver a spoonful of lead to a Robbie out there, but I am prepared to do so if required. Meantime, I mind my own business, I take my responsibilities as a firearms owner seriously, and I practice enough situational awareness to do my level best to keep myself and my family out of situations that would require me to unholster and use my firearm.
Personal responsibility is a virtue. I wish I heard that same sentiment from every firearms owner I encounter. Unfortunately, I don’t. As long as we have firearms owners who don’t take their responsibilities deadly seriously, we will continue providing anti-gunners with opportunities to emotionally advocate non-solutions in front of TV cameras in the wake of preventable tragedies. And we will have a subset of firearms owners who scream that anti-gunners, not a lack of personal responsibility, is to blame for attacks on the Second Amendment. It’s time to end the “us-versus-them” rhetoric and start demonstrating that we are as serious about firearms safety and responsibility as anyone else.
Well said James. In fact, on a personal note, I don’t like the terminology or verbiage of “gun control”; But rather I prefer to look at “firearms management”. Encompassing a sophisticated array of policies, not to over regulate, but to serve the law abiding “owners”, supporting them, and their safety. So that the quality of their lifestyle is maintained.
That is backward thinking, it also is implying that the victim of the burglary is complicit in the crime. Most of those that claim their firearm was stolen are trying to cover-up the crime of a “straw” purchase. Punishing a innocent person because they did not report a theft, and might not have known about it when it occurred is not going to prevent any crime.
So, do you verify that your firearms are still wherever you keep them every day and night? When you leave your home, when you come back do you do an accounting of all of your firearms? I highly suspect that most people do not take a daily accounting of all of their belongings. As a kid, I had a relative steal my brother’s watch from his bedroom. We did not know about that until my brother came back from college a couple of months later. If that had been a firearm, my brother should have been punished?
Tracking ownership of firearms does not solve crimes. What difference does it make who owned it, unless you are going to return the property to that person, which the tracing is not used for. The ATF has immense amounts of data on recovered firearms. The time to crime stat shows how meaningless tracing is. Here is the 2018 ATF tracing data.
The only “gun control” we need is explained in our 2A, “shall not be infringed.”
As if that is the reason the anti-2A people are seeking “gun control” legislation? If that were true, their proposals would address that issue - they do not.
The Anti-2A people do not want firearm safety, they want citizen disarmament.
Actually Dave, I do verify that all of my firearms are in my possession on a daily basis. It’s called being a responsible steward. The fact that you seem to equate the level of responsibility necessary for owning a firearm as the same as for owning a wristwatch sends a very clear message…to me and to the entire anti-gun establishment. With all due respect, your comments here sadly are a boon to those who wish to disarm We The People, in my opinion…
Maybe I was unclear in my thoughts, but you and I are both on the same side of the argument here: we both believe the Second Amendment shall not be infringed. Nevertheless, there are many, many people out there who feel differently. Their convictions have been baptized with the tears of tragedy. They are well-funded, vocal, and politically connected.
All it takes for the Politicos to rescind a Liberty is to cite “The Will of the People.” This means people like us need to be a little more thoughtful in our reasoning and statements so as not to provide “ammunition” to the undecideds out there who can and will determine the tipping point one way or another, whether we like it or not.
So stay safe out there and keep track of your watches.
I believe that like I believe you could sell me the Brooklyn Bridge. Even if what you claim is true, what about when you go on vacation? No one realistically can know with any certainty when he/she is not physically in the presence of their firearms know where they are. Your childish response about tracking watches proves you are not serious, just trolling for ignorant people to agree with your ridiculous assertion about being a responsible steward.
You claimed that the reason that anti-2A people want “gun control” is because of irresponsible firearm owners. You completely failed to address my point disproving that assertion, and chose to be flippant. When you are ready for a real discussion, I am here.
If you had any knowledge of our rights and how we came to have them, you would not have made such an ignorant statement. Our inalienable, Natural Rights are not “granted” nor “given” to us by our government. Our Founding Fathers haven written and spoken about this, and stated succinctly that our inalienable rights pre-exist government and the Law of Man, that even without the 2A guaranteeing our RKBA we would still have that right. Please educate yourself.
Ad hominem attacks and false equivalencies are not “real discussion.” But nice try anyway. Good luck.