Universal Background Check DebateSubmitted by Phaminem on Thu, 04/25/2013 - 11:03
Last week, the universal background check was shot down in the Senate. Basically, the bill was about closing loopholes for people who didn't have to get background checks. Currently, if you buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer, that dealer is mandated to run a background check on you. However, if you buy guns privately like from a family member/friend, on the internet, or at gun shows, you currently don't have to pass a background check. Those are considered private transactions. However, this universal background check wants to close those loopholes and make everybody pass a background check.
I can understand why people see it's ridiculous that my daughter or something has to pass a background check to receive my gun. In that case, I suppose I'm selling her that gun for $0.
However, on the flip side, if we allow this to happen, then we're also allowing gun owners to sell their guns to people that they don't know. These people can be violent, convicted of domestic violence, have restraining orders, etc.
In an even more extreme example of this background check loophole, this allows for Person A to intentionally buy guns for Person B so that Person B can commit violence. Person A knows that Person B would not normally be able to pass a background check.
I completely understand the argument that private sales of gun ownership should not require a background check. It's kind of like selling you my computer, it shouldn't be a big deal. The government should not be interfering in our lives. However, even when I sell a car to some guy on Craigslist, I have to notify the DMV and stuff like that. So this issue confuses me.
1. How do you feel about universal background checks?
2. If you don't agree with universal background checks, do you support negligence lawsuits against the person who privately sold a gun to a killer without the background check?