args

Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime

Thanks to TheHitchslap for accepting this debate, I look forward to the challenge. I will start with a fairly simple assertion. If a law is made to stop something, the illegal acquisition of a firearm in this case, it needs to be enforceable to deter criminals and wrong doers. Obviously someone who attempts to obtain a gun illegally, or for illegal means, has no regard for the law, so simply making something else illegal cannot be logically assumed to be a deterrent. In order for this law to be successful (in other words, to keep guns from those that should not have them) authorities would need to prove it is being broken to prosecute those who would not comply. Since authorities would have no way of doing this, there would be no incentive for the criminally inclined to even consider this law when attempting their next acquisition. To illustrate this idea, I will use two scenarios involving the illegal purchase of a gun... 1) A criminal asks his friend to buy him a gun. The willing friend purchases the gun after passing a background check and then gives it to the criminal. The authorities can't prove this transaction occurred and are powerless to stop it having no prior knowledge it was taking place. UBC fails to keep a gun from a criminal in the exact type of transaction for which it was designed. 2) A criminal locates a stranger selling a gun suitable for his needs. He offers to pay the stranger $100 more than the asking price to avoid the "inconvenience" of a background check. The seller, being raised a capitalist and lacking civic responsibility (a characteristic all to common these days) and fearing no reprisal, is happy to pocket the extra cash. Again, the authorities have no way of proving this transaction occurred and the criminal is free to use the newly acquired gun for whatever evil purposes he see fit. As you can see, each of these transactions are completely untraceable unless one of the parties decides to turn themselves in over a sudden bought of guilt. If this bought represents the pinnacle of the laws effectiveness then I think we can all agree it is not worth the time it will take to pass it, much less the trouble it causes responsible, law abiding citizens. Regrettably, only those with a strong feeling of civic duty will be, at the least, inconvenienced by this law, and at most, outright wrongfully prosecuted. Since this law effectively requires all gun sales be made through an FFL, citizens who live away from populations and towns may have to drive for miles simply to legally sell a gun to an acquaintance. Depending on the price of the gun and the background check, this could effectively negate any gain to be had from the sale. This law also allows our attorney general (a political appointee with no fear of voter reprisal) to set the price of a background check at whatever he/she sees fit. While you can't assume abuse of such a privilege, you also cannot guarantee it's fair keeping. With this law a gun owner could face federal prosecution for selling his gun to his brother without a UBC, if he first listed that gun for sale in an online forum that his brother was a member of...How does that make sense? Also as written, a gun owner could face federal prosecution for lending a friend a gun on a hunt, or letting a stranger use their weapon at a gun range (w/out first having the background check) I ask again, how does this make sense? With all the potential downfalls to the law abiding, and all the holes afforded to the lawless there is no reason to assume any tangiable reduction in crime would result from this amendment being passed. http://www.politifact.com... http://www.docstoc.com...