The Pros And Cons Of Stricter Background Checks

The second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However this was written after the American Revolution where the very fact that people owned guns helped gain America’s independence. No founding father could foresee the fact that the issue of gun control would become so prominent in today's society as firearms are ranked 12th for the leading causes of all deaths. The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Civil War veterans who wanted to improve the marksmanship of the Union soldiers and primarily served as a hunting organization. In 1935, Congress passed the Federal Firearms Act which required sellers to have a federal license, record the names of buyers and prohibited sellers to give guns to

One of the most obvious reasons is that with strict background checks, guns can stay out of the hands of the wrong people. Background checks currently only check criminal records so many believe that checks on mental illness, past domestic abusers and people with a history of violence. People such as US Representative Gabrielle Giffords back these measures, Giffords is the survivor of an assassination attempt that claimed six lives. The shooter had shown signs of mental illness and erratic behavior in the months preceding the tragedy so it is possible that stricter regulations could have helped prevent the shooting. Another reason stricter background checks could be useful is that most guns used in mass shootings are actually legally bought. A recent study showed that of the 143 guns possessed by the killers in the 62 mass shootings from 1982 to 2012, three quarters of the guns were obtained legally. This refutes the argument that if strict background checks were to be enforced, criminals would still be able to obtain guns while the general public would be left defenseless. Background checks would actually be able to prevent mass

One is that a person has a fundamental right to self defense. Many believe that background checks hinder a person’s right to self defense which is a violation of the second amendment. The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action states that in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” and that an individual can possess a gun in case of confrontation (Right-To-Carry 2012). Many see stricter background checks as a threat to the fundamental right of public safety. Another con to having strict background checks is that if more people are allowed to legally own guns, violent crime goes down. Studies from the NRA showed that through 2010, the nation’s murder rate had decreased 57 percent to a 47-year low and the rate of violent crime has decreased 48 percent to a new 37 year low in violent crime (Right-To-Carry 2012). This shows that even with the current background check system, it was possible for gun violence and crime rates to be reduced. If stricter background checks that could possibly hinder a person’s ability to obtain a gun, that violent crime rate could begin to rise again. Finally, a con against allowing stricter background checks is that it will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns and committing crimes. As the gun rights activist, John R. Lott, PhD stated,