The background check requirement only applies to Federal Firearms License holders. Private sellers are not required to screen their buyers in any way.
Usually the question of background checks comes up in reference to gun shows. So common is this association that "The Gun Show Loophole" has become synonymous with requiring background checks on all gun sales. This is obviously not the case for the simple reason that not all private gun sales take place at gun shows.
So, legislation requiring background checks at all sales that take place at gun shows is only a partial solution to a very wide-spread problem. I would imagine proponents of this type of legislation expect to expand it eventually to include all private sales, otherwise it wouldn't accomplish what it's supposed to.
The opposition is fierce, primarily by the NRA and by the more extreme gun-rights advocates. Some surveys have shown that they are in the minority, but they are extremely vocal and well financed. Most people feel they're winning.
My question is why, why such powerful and costly opposition? I've identified two reasons which should cover those making up this unreasonable group.
1. Some people actually believe the bizarre suggestion that gun control steps like these would lead to a tyrannical government which will eventually ban all gun ownership and confiscate the ones already owned. Part of this fantasy is that civilian gun ownership is what keeps the government in check. They actually say "the 2nd Amendment preserves the 1st Amendment," and other such nonsense. This is a type of grandiosity mixed with paranoia. To these folks there's no discussing the obvious benefits of proper gun control; they cannot see beyond the glorious struggle for "rights" and "freedom" they fancy themselves involved in.
2. Some people recognize the foolishness of the first group, but they'll never admit it because they both want the same thing. These folks realize very well that making it more difficult for criminals and mentally ill people to get guns is a moral imperative, one which would save many lives, but they don't care. A self-centered, me-first philosophy drives them to resist anything that would result in increased inconvenience and expense. The claims that the inconvenience and increased expense would be minimal, doesn't phase them. They are as stubborn as the first group and are happy to support them in their mutual cause.
To sum up, you've got paranoid lunatics and self-centered people who together make up the background-check resistance. Becuase of their successful opposition, at least so far, I blame them for the baleful results.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Debate Magazine
