It has been a long standing gun rights talking point that anti-gun laws only prevent honest, law abiding people from getting guns. Criminals, being criminals, will not obey the laws and so will continue to get guns. It seems reasonable to make that assumption but what it doesn't take into account is how criminals actually get guns. For the above statement to be true, the criminals would need to have near universal access to some sort of black market. But is that actually how criminals get their guns?
When Missouri lifted its permit-to-purchase handgun laws in 2007, it seems there was a significant increase in crimes. Without the background check, people were buying guns from otherwise reputable dealers and then going on to commit crimes. That strongly suggests that when background checks are in place, many would-be criminals can't find some other way to get the guns they want.
Do background checks restrict the rights of otherwise law-abiding citizens and, as such, are a threat to our Second Amendment rights? I don't think so. It seems an inconvenience and, here in Pennsylvania, it is a very slight inconvenience in that I have to wait a few minutes for the dealer to make a phone call and pay him a few bucks for the trouble. I would disagree with what I think the Missouri law was in that it gave the decision not to an impartial database but to the discretion of the local sheriff as to whether he would issue a permit. I find that too prone to abuse for political or personal reasons and agree that, if that were the case, the law should have been repealed. However, the evidence shows to me that it should have been replaced with something that kept background checks in place.
This is the sort of evidence we need, as I mentioned above, and the perhaps difficult truths we must accept should the facts not go perfectly our way.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-02-18 08:38 pm (UTC)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26222578 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26222578)
Apparently not.
When Missouri lifted its permit-to-purchase handgun laws in 2007, it seems there was a significant increase in crimes. Without the background check, people were buying guns from otherwise reputable dealers and then going on to commit crimes. That strongly suggests that when background checks are in place, many would-be criminals can't find some other way to get the guns they want.
Do background checks restrict the rights of otherwise law-abiding citizens and, as such, are a threat to our Second Amendment rights? I don't think so. It seems an inconvenience and, here in Pennsylvania, it is a very slight inconvenience in that I have to wait a few minutes for the dealer to make a phone call and pay him a few bucks for the trouble. I would disagree with what I think the Missouri law was in that it gave the decision not to an impartial database but to the discretion of the local sheriff as to whether he would issue a permit. I find that too prone to abuse for political or personal reasons and agree that, if that were the case, the law should have been repealed. However, the evidence shows to me that it should have been replaced with something that kept background checks in place.
This is the sort of evidence we need, as I mentioned above, and the perhaps difficult truths we must accept should the facts not go perfectly our way.