Columns

The Absurdity of 'Universal' Background Checks

By: Sheldon Richman | Posted: April 11, 2013 3:55 AM
Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman

Those who favor “universal” background checks on gun buyers make some ridiculous arguments.

For example, opponents correctly point out that gun buyers with criminal intent will always find channels that require no background check. Gunrunning is among the oldest professions, and the black market will always be with us. Thus the promise of universal background checks -- even if that were a legitimate government activity -- is a fraud, because universality can’t possibly be achieved.

Supporters, however, challenge this argument by contending that it proves too much: If requiring background checks is futile as a crime-fighting measure, they ask, why should we have laws against murder, rape, battery, and robbery? Those laws will never stop everyone from committing a crime, so what’s the point?

This argument is flawed. Let’s remember that the background-check requirement is intended, prophylactically, to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm to others. In contrast, the prohibition against murder and other forms of aggression is intended, retrospectively, to legitimate the apprehension and prosecution of people who have committed offenses against person and property. Yes, deterrence is also intended, but the main objective is to permit action after the fact.

Supporters of background checks may respond that a “universal” requirement would permit the government to go after those who have used guns aggressively. But this argument has no force whatever, simply because if someone commits aggression with a gun, the government already has grounds to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrator. What value is there in being able to charge a suspected mass murderer with illegal possession of a gun as well?

The practical argument for mandated background checks depends solely on its potential for keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them to commit crimes. (However, it would not have stopped Adam Lanza in Newtown or other mass murderers.) On that ground the argument fails, because people with criminal intent will find ways to buy guns that do not require a check. Proponents of background checks seem to think that a government decree will dry up the black market. But why would it? Sales will go on beyond the government’s ability to monitor them. Out of sight, out of government control.

Proponents also mock those who predict that so-called universal background checks will lead to gun registration and confiscation. But this is not an outlandish fear. (The ACLU shares it.) Since guns will continue to be bought and sold without background checks, a national registry is the likely next step in the crusade to deter such transfers. The civil-liberties implications are harrowing.

Thus the case against mandating “universal” background checks withstands scrutiny. This measure would not keep criminally minded people from acquiring guns, but it would give a false sense of security to the public by promising something they cannot deliver. What will the public, which favors background checks, call for after the next atrocity? A total prohibition on guns and confiscation?

While it wouldn't prevent crime, a background-check law could impede persons without criminal intent from obtaining firearms for self-defense. Many law-abiding people don’t buy a gun until they’ve been threatened -- a woman by her estranged husband, for example -- and they will be reluctant to buy one outside the law. (Someone with a conviction for a felony drug charge or other victimless crime cannot legally possess a gun. Why such people should be barred from an effective means of self-defense is a mystery that ought to be explained.)

This criticism of so-called universal background checks demonstrates the futility of the proposal. A more specifically moral (and libertarian) criticism is that mere possession of a firearm entails no aggression whatever, regardless of a person’s background, and therefore should not be prohibited. Government may not properly interfere with someone because he might commit a crime. (Of course businesses owners have a right to deny entry to people with guns -- just as gun owners have a right to patronize other businesses.)

But, some will say, isn’t a requirement for background checks worthwhile if it might save one innocent life? And what if the requirement might cost one innocent life? Is one innocent life more valuable than another?



Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Va.

Comments (7)

bakersacres57
3:03PM APR 11TH 2013
Silly, 90, plus percent of America is in favor of registration, where does that put Sheldon.
Frank
10:47PM APR 11TH 2013
Right where many of these articles are directed - to those 10% far right winged beyond-even-the-NRA wackos . . . . . to whom neither facts nor dead children matter, because common sense is irrelevant when you have a god-given right to own military weapons because you just know you've got to start killing your government and all your fellow citizens that oppose your opinions real soon . . . for whatever paranoid conspiracy theory you'll come up with next week that demands taking everyone out . . . . . . . . . just like Oklahoma City . . . . disturbingly delusional and clearly. . . . .

Pathetic . . .
John Paul Jones
3:34PM APR 13TH 2013
Sorry but both of you are 100% wrong. I suspect both of you are smart enough to know that (meaning you are being dishonest). But that is what I love about you Frank-- your ability to write so confidently about that which you are completely incompetent to write. Maybe you should try to prevent crime by focusing on the people who commit crime rather than on those who do not. Oops, that would make sense and that is not really your goal, is it?
bakersacres57
11:00AM APR 14TH 2013
Sorry, typical right winger, in denial about reality.
John Paul Jones
1:03PM APR 14TH 2013
Hi Baker Act. Look, you may be as smart or smarter than Frank for all I know (its not a high bar to clear). But I guarantee you do not have the dedication to hit every article on SSN, every day, for years on end, spreading your nonsensical, adolescent jibberish with the flair that he does. However, this is America and I applaud you effort for trying. But from here on out, I'll just reply to Frank.
bakersacres57
8:03PM APR 15TH 2013
Wow, I just thought the columns and articles were funny.
Frank
4:37PM APR 15TH 2013
Welcome to the 10% far right . . . and look who's once again clearly outright lying to create their politics of the "Big Lie" --> "hit every article on SSN, every day, for years on end" . . . . . lying on all three accounts, aren't you . . .

And you couldn't even have a clue, unless you worked for SSN or had access to SSN's computer records, now could you . . . and whether you do, or do not have access, you're knowingly lying . . . . . because if you do have access, you know the records don't support your lies . . . . and if you don't have access, you have absolutely no way to know and demonstrate this unless I were to comment on every article (which I don't - I don't EVER even read all articles on this site, nor access it every day), and, therefore, you are knowingly lying . . . . so, in either case, you're lying, will not be tolerated, and have once again shown yourself to be totally . . . .

Pathetic . . .

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.