It is often said, “guns don’t kill people — people kill people.” Although this statement is true, it is also true that guns — especially selling guns — should be handled with care. Unfortunately, the Internet and online commerce have made tracking gun sales more difficult. The Internet has also made unlicensed, private sales of firearms more popular, which comes with a host of difficulties. Because of the danger that firearms pose when placed in the wrong hands, background checks should be required on any and all gun sales in the United States.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal government currently requires federally licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks on those wishing to buy a gun. The catch, however, is that private sellers (when selling to someone in their own state) are encouraged — but not required — to conduct a background check through a licensed dealer during the finalizing of the sale. It is left up to the states to decide if private sellers need to work through licensed dealers. Leaving it up to the states is not good enough — background checks need to be required by all sellers in order to keep guns in the right hands.
According to a 2011 investigation and report commissioned by the City of New York titled “Point, Click, Fire,” 40 percent of guns are sold through private sellers. The problem with this is discussed early on in the report. It reads, “These sales — which take place in many venues, including gun shows and, increasingly, on the Internet — account for about 40 percent of U.S. sales, and fuel the black market for illegal guns. And they leave no electronic or paper trail behind them.”
Most startling, however, is that a reported 62 percent of private gun sellers “agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer who said he probably couldn’t pass a background check.” Like this report shows, the fact that the federal government allows private sellers to bypass conducting background checks is irresponsible and just a little crazy.
The purpose of background checks is to prevent felons, abusers and other potentially dangerous people from owning guns. If those people can turn around and buy a gun from a private seller, then there is almost no point in requiring background checks of any firearms dealers.
In the end, people should be able to own guns. However, those who have proven themselves to be potentially dangerous with a gun should not have that privilege. Allowing private gun sellers to bypass conducting background checks puts all Americans at risk. The federal government should require all private sellers to finalize firearm sales through a federally licensed dealer so that a background check can be completed. This would keep guns from falling into the wrong hands and help keep the U.S. safe.
Firearm sellers must conduct background checks
October 28, 2013
ColoradoRob • Oct 30, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Carly, please stop pushing for national gun registration. We won’t allow it. “But, she’s not pushing for that!” I hear some of you cry. Well, she’s either pushing for it, or for more useless laws that do nothing.
“The federal government should require all private sellers to finalize firearm sales through a federally licensed dealer so that a background check can be completed. This would keep guns from falling into the wrong hands and help keep the U.S. safe.”
So, exactly how do you propose any government entity place this “requirement” on anyone? You wanna pass a law? Ok, let’s do a thought experiment.
Law passes: “Buyer of firearm must pass background check on all sales, public or private.” You lay out the penalties for breaking the law.
So what then? How do you go about enforcing the law? Do you go house to house searching for guns, and demanding proof of ownership? Probably not. When a cop stops someone with a gun, do they demand proof of ownership? Mantra: “I bought it before the law went into effect.” Lie or truth, the cop can’t really charge anyone with a crime. When someone uses a gun in a crime, do we look deeper to see the gun was bought in violation of the law? Ok – but the law didn’t exactly “keep guns from falling into the wrong hands and help keep the U.S. safe”, now did it?
Congratulations on your useless law that does nothing.
Unless there’s some sort of national database that tracks guns. That’s the only way to make this nonsense idea of Carly’s work. And no, the American public won’t allow you to implement one.
ColoradoRob • Oct 30, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Carly, please stop pushing for national gun registration. We won’t allow it. “But, she’s not pushing for that!” I hear some of you cry. Well, she’s either pushing for it, or for more useless laws that do nothing.
“The federal government should require all private sellers to finalize firearm sales through a federally licensed dealer so that a background check can be completed. This would keep guns from falling into the wrong hands and help keep the U.S. safe.”
So, exactly how do you propose any government entity place this “requirement” on anyone? You wanna pass a law? Ok, let’s do a thought experiment.
Law passes: “Buyer of firearm must pass background check on all sales, public or private.” You lay out the penalties for breaking the law.
So what then? How do you go about enforcing the law? Do you go house to house searching for guns, and demanding proof of ownership? Probably not. When a cop stops someone with a gun, do they demand proof of ownership? Mantra: “I bought it before the law went into effect.” Lie or truth, the cop can’t really charge anyone with a crime. When someone uses a gun in a crime, do we look deeper to see the gun was bought in violation of the law? Ok – but the law didn’t exactly “keep guns from falling into the wrong hands and help keep the U.S. safe”, now did it?
Congratulations on your useless law that does nothing.
Unless there’s some sort of national database that tracks guns. That’s the only way to make this nonsense idea of Carly’s work. And no, the American public won’t allow you to implement one.
murraydad • Oct 29, 2013 at 10:06 am
Owning guns in America is a RIGHT, not a privilege. The second amendment is fairly clear on the government’s ability to restrict that right, not that it stops our criminal congress from attempting to infringe it at every turn. The writer obviously lives in some fantasy land where black markets don’t exist. So called “universal” background checks will not curb crime in the least.
Colton Fonnesbeck • Oct 29, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Thoughts such as these are what are holding back any discussion, so what if there will always be black markets? Shouldn’t we still be trying to make progress to reduce the effects of these markets? Also, while the Second Amendment does protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm, we have to keep in mind that it is an AMENDMENT. The very nature of the constitution is that it is not permanent. What it meant to “bear arms” was much different 230 years ago than it does with the firepower readily available. So perhaps it is time to reevaluate our needs and freedoms and have a relevant discussion on the topic rather than falling back on generic arguments that stall any progress.
murraydad • Oct 30, 2013 at 11:25 am
It is not a generic argument to say that the founders believed in certain inalienable rights granted by our creator. The Bill of Rights addresses the federal government’s restrictions upon infringing these rights which were considered to be pre-existing. These rights are inherent in your existence, and are not intended to be revocable by government. As you say, it’s an amendment, and it could indeed be changed in future generations, but the process is exceedingly hard, and unlikely to happen in the near future. To dismiss any of the Bill of Rights as ‘merely amendments’ shows an astounding lack of understanding of the history of your country, and the genius of the founders. Even if the 2nd Amendment was stripped from the constitution, it does not abrogate your human right to bear arms in self-defense, it merely removes the federal government’s explicit rejoinder from infringing upon it. As for further gun control — the only people who follow gun control law are the law abiding. Again, the central fallacy of gun control arguments is that it will somehow effect criminals, as if murder, assault, robbery, and rape were not already illegal, whether committed with a gun or a knife. This is of course incorrect on its face, and the complete effect of gun control is to infringe on the rights of the law abiding. Whatever solutions are sought should more than likely be focused on societal causes, rather than focused on the tools used.
Colton Fonnesbeck • Oct 30, 2013 at 1:49 pm
I never said “merely amendments.” The idea is that the constitution was designed to be changed by future generations, which was the genius of the founders. They knew that forcing future generations to live by laws of the past would create conflict. Thomas Jefferson believed that “Every constitution, and therefore every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, not of right.” Now, since this is the last time I’ll post, I will say that neither of us will convince the other to change their position, however, I do believe that compromise can be made by the american people if there is thoughtful discussion on the matter. Ad hominem attacks against the writer and myself are not useful tools to reach compromise. One place we agree is that the focus should be on societal issues, however, I believe our societal issue is our beliefs on gun regulation. Yes criminals will always do their thing, however, although it is true that a determined killer cannot be stopped by the absence of a gun, evidence indicates that many homicides are unplanned. The outcome depends, at least partially, on the weapon at hand and guns are five times more likely to be deadly than knifes. Here’s the link to the research. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjrr14&div=5&id=&page=. So I thank you for your input and I certainly do understand your side of the argument.
murraydad • Oct 29, 2013 at 10:06 am
Owning guns in America is a RIGHT, not a privilege. The second amendment is fairly clear on the government’s ability to restrict that right, not that it stops our criminal congress from attempting to infringe it at every turn. The writer obviously lives in some fantasy land where black markets don’t exist. So called “universal” background checks will not curb crime in the least.
Colton Fonnesbeck • Oct 29, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Thoughts such as these are what are holding back any discussion, so what if there will always be black markets? Shouldn’t we still be trying to make progress to reduce the effects of these markets? Also, while the Second Amendment does protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm, we have to keep in mind that it is an AMENDMENT. The very nature of the constitution is that it is not permanent. What it meant to “bear arms” was much different 230 years ago than it does with the firepower readily available. So perhaps it is time to reevaluate our needs and freedoms and have a relevant discussion on the topic rather than falling back on generic arguments that stall any progress.
murraydad • Oct 30, 2013 at 11:25 am
It is not a generic argument to say that the founders believed in certain inalienable rights granted by our creator. The Bill of Rights addresses the federal government’s restrictions upon infringing these rights which were considered to be pre-existing. These rights are inherent in your existence, and are not intended to be revocable by government. As you say, it’s an amendment, and it could indeed be changed in future generations, but the process is exceedingly hard, and unlikely to happen in the near future. To dismiss any of the Bill of Rights as ‘merely amendments’ shows an astounding lack of understanding of the history of your country, and the genius of the founders. Even if the 2nd Amendment was stripped from the constitution, it does not abrogate your human right to bear arms in self-defense, it merely removes the federal government’s explicit rejoinder from infringing upon it. As for further gun control — the only people who follow gun control law are the law abiding. Again, the central fallacy of gun control arguments is that it will somehow effect criminals, as if murder, assault, robbery, and rape were not already illegal, whether committed with a gun or a knife. This is of course incorrect on its face, and the complete effect of gun control is to infringe on the rights of the law abiding. Whatever solutions are sought should more than likely be focused on societal causes, rather than focused on the tools used.
Colton Fonnesbeck • Oct 30, 2013 at 1:49 pm
I never said “merely amendments.” The idea is that the constitution was designed to be changed by future generations, which was the genius of the founders. They knew that forcing future generations to live by laws of the past would create conflict. Thomas Jefferson believed that “Every constitution, and therefore every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, not of right.” Now, since this is the last time I’ll post, I will say that neither of us will convince the other to change their position, however, I do believe that compromise can be made by the american people if there is thoughtful discussion on the matter. Ad hominem attacks against the writer and myself are not useful tools to reach compromise. One place we agree is that the focus should be on societal issues, however, I believe our societal issue is our beliefs on gun regulation. Yes criminals will always do their thing, however, although it is true that a determined killer cannot be stopped by the absence of a gun, evidence indicates that many homicides are unplanned. The outcome depends, at least partially, on the weapon at hand and guns are five times more likely to be deadly than knifes. Here’s the link to the research. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjrr14&div=5&id=&page=. So I thank you for your input and I certainly do understand your side of the argument.
Itso Ashkee • Oct 29, 2013 at 6:36 am
A synopsis of Utah state laws on purchase, possession and carrying of firearms.
PURCHASE
No state permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. A gun dealer shall not sell or transfer any firearm until an instant criminal history background check is conducted and approved by the Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI). All dealers shall collect a $7.50 fee to cover the costs of the background check. Holders of a valid concealed firearm permit issued by this state are exempt from this requirement so long as the person presents the permit to the dealer and the dealer verifies that the permit is valid.
Itso Ashkee • Oct 29, 2013 at 6:36 am
A synopsis of Utah state laws on purchase, possession and carrying of firearms.
PURCHASE
No state permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. A gun dealer shall not sell or transfer any firearm until an instant criminal history background check is conducted and approved by the Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI). All dealers shall collect a $7.50 fee to cover the costs of the background check. Holders of a valid concealed firearm permit issued by this state are exempt from this requirement so long as the person presents the permit to the dealer and the dealer verifies that the permit is valid.