Skip to content

Universal Background Checks Don’t Work, so Why Do We Want More of Them?

January 11, 2019

I’ve made mistakes before and I’ll probably make some again. That is why it’s important to be aware and skeptical as we try new ideas. There is a time for persistence and a time to ask if you’re headed in the right direction. All that came to mind as I read about the US House of Representatives proposing universal background checks for firearms owners. These background checks have failed too many times to try them again.

The fundamental failure of a background check is that it looks backward. Mass murder is not a long-term career path. Background checks can’t stop a first-time mass murderer. Here are the most recent examples.


  • The mass murderer who killed 12 people at a country western bar in Thousand Oaks, California passed his background checks..several times.
  • The mass murderer who killed 11 people in a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania synagogue passed his background checks for each weapon he owned.
  • The mass murderer who killed four people in an Annapolis, Maryland newspaper office purchased his firearms legally and passed his background checks.
  • The student who killed 10 people in his El Paso, Texas high school stole his guns. He took the legally owned guns from his father without permission, so background check laws would not have stopped this murder.
  • The schizophrenic who murdered 4 people at a Waffle House restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee was disarmed after he make threats. In a federal lawsuit the murderer’s father said he was never told that his son was a prohibited person and not allowed to have guns.
  • The murderer at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida passed his background checks even though he had many psychological counseling sessions and had been reported to the school, to local police, and to the FBI.


  • The murderer at the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas killed 27 people after passing his background checks. He should have been barred from getting a gun since he was treated for mental illness, convicted of domestic violence, and dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force. The Air Force never submitted his criminal records to the national background check system.
  • The murderer at the Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas killed 59 people after buying his firearms legally and passing a background check for each gun he used.

I could go on for hundreds of examples but I fear you wouldn’t read them. If this is what background checks do for us, then we should run from them rather than embrace more of the same. It is clear that background checks don’t stop mass murders.

Do mandatory background checks reduce other violent crimes? No other state does gun-control as much and as hard as California. California is rated the first in the nation for gun-control. Background check requirements were imposed in California three decades ago and should have worked there if they would work anywhere.

Sociologists and criminologists published a report in the Annals of Epidemiology where they compared California to other states which hadn’t mandated background checks. Neither mandatory background checks nor firearms prohibition for misdemeanor crimes reduced gun homicide or suicide in California. In fact, the California homicide rate rose by 16 percent from 2014 to 2016. California gun-control doesn’t work.

Why do politicians propose failed ideas over and over? For the politician, background checks don’t have to make our streets safer. All they have to do is sound good on TV. Most of us don’t do our homework. We buy our ideas the same way we buy knives on the shopping channel at 2 in the morning. We buy gun-control because it sounds good and is sold with enthusiasm.

Mass murderers and other criminals don’t follow our gun laws. Stop pretending they do because our gullibility is getting us killed. Here is the downside to gun-control and background checks.

Licensed concealed carry holders are among the most law abiding and non-violent groups of people on the planet. Law abiding citizens use legally owned firearms for self-defense thousands of times a day. Disarming even a few honest gun owners will leave more of us as disarmed victims of criminal violence. That costs lives.

There are no exemptions in our gun laws for need. There is no exemption for the young woman who has a stalker and suddenly needs a gun for protection. There is no exemption for the sexual assault victim who now wants a firearm to feel secure when she is home alone. It is illegal to give these innocent and honest people a tool for self-defense until the state approves. The victim’s needs come second after the state has its mandatory background checks..and its fees.

The time to stop and turn around is when you realize you’ve made a mistake. Universal background checks sound good but cost lives.

I gave you almost 800 words and a few hours of research for free. Please share this article and comment. RM


15 Comments leave one →
  1. January 11, 2019 6:39 am

    More status quo inept gun legislation to appease the lib-tard voting bloc, it’s a broken record that has been playing for decades.


  2. January 11, 2019 6:46 am

    Reblogged this on The Tactical Hermit and commented:
    Once again liberals prove the only reason they do anything regarding gun control legislation is to appease their voting bloc.


  3. January 11, 2019 8:03 am

    The only reason “we” want more of them is to make the process of ownership & transfer so onerous and frustrating that some folks simply don’t get involved. Oh, and to create a new class of crimes to catch people for.


  4. MaddMedic permalink
    January 11, 2019 2:55 pm

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….


  5. January 11, 2019 5:36 pm

    Reblogged this on Musings From A Cranky Conservative and commented:
    I have no problems with a NICS check at the local Gun Store, but after three days if the government can’t back up their denial the sale goes through. If later it is found to be in error, either reclaim the weapon or swear out a warrant from the bench. This system will break down occasionally but no system run by humans is ever going to be perfect.
    There is evil in the heart of every man and anyone who doubts this is either a fool or a Progressive. You are never going to be able to design a background check system that is both convenient and effective. The more effective it is will make it much less convenient for the typical law abiding citizen who doesn’t want to wait thirty days to be able to pick up his sixth handgun, made even more silly by the fact he has has his concealed carry permit for twenty years and has permit number 3! He should be able to walk in and then walk right back out with his weapon of choice by virtue of being a member of one of the most law abiding groups in the country, concealed carry permit holders. This seems like common sense gun control to me.


  6. January 11, 2019 5:43 pm

    Reblogged at


  7. January 12, 2019 7:28 pm

    Reblogged this on depolreablesunite.


  8. Chuck Wright permalink
    January 13, 2019 12:51 pm

    Re: “Disarming even a few honest gun owners us will leave more of us as disarmed victims of criminal violence.”

    That sentence needs some work. Perhaps you meant to write “Disarming even a few honest gun owners will leave more of us as disarmed victims of criminal violence.”

    Chuck Wright

    Liked by 1 person

  9. n.r.ringlee permalink
    January 16, 2019 10:52 am

    Popularly supported common sense solutions feel good and provide great photo opportunities for politicians. Results don’t count. Progressives don’t seek results nor do they assume responsibility for consequences when policies fail. It is all about optics.


  10. Jim Smith permalink
    January 16, 2019 12:03 pm

    If the totality of what is really desired is universal background checks on all gun transfers, the answer is simple and easy – give anyone free, anonymous, public access to the federal NICS background check database of persons prohibited from owning firearms and then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain something that documents you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. There is no reason to get the government involved any further in the process unless you have other goals in mind like a federal registry of all firearms.


  11. James Farmer permalink
    January 17, 2019 1:09 pm

    Klamath Falls Herald and News: Thursday, January 17th, 2019/Letters To The Editor

    ‘Petty tyrants’ want to take our guns

    Responding to, “Bill would require permits to buy guns, limit ammo”: Tuesday, Jan. 15 Herald and News, naturally angered, but didn’t surprise me I predicted the socialist, elitist, Bolshevik legislators in Salem would perpetrate their anti-gun “class warfare/people control” agenda against autonomous Oregon gun owners. Jeffrey R. Snyder’s “A Nation Of Cowards: The Public Interest Quarterly 1993 states it best under, The Unarmed Life: The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this Utopian (socialist ) zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts of the state.

    “It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that statement with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state’s totalitarian reach.”

    Freedom in America (and Oregon) is more than an illusion. Is further proof required the socialist treasonous elite in Salem want us common citizens disarmed? It doesn’t matter if firearm is a matchlock or flintlock musket, a handgun, or AR-15 type rifle: these petty tyrants don’t want us to own any firearm, period!

    Class warfare? Absolutely! Two Ashland Daily Tidings commentaries of mine bears this out. They include: : “Anti-gun agenda is class warfare” (Friday, Jan. 9, 2009) and “The war on America’s gun owners” (Monday, Aug. 3, 2009), respectively. These remain archived via the Ashland Daily Tidings at http://www.daily

    Finally, “Gun Confiscation for Dummies: ‘Red Flag’ Laws Are Glorified SWAT-ing: Sunday, Jan. 13, 2019, at http://www.thetruthaboutguns. A YouTube video courtesy of a pro-Second Amendment woman attorney is likewise posted at this same site and is titled: “Paying (bribing) states to confiscate guns.”

    Write and urge your local state representative/senator to oppose Senate Bill 501.

    James A. Farmer, Merrill

    Merrill, Oregon in Klamath County is located 21 miles south-east of Klamath Falls along
    Highway 39. Merrill is a semi-rural farming community of about 860 residents.



  1. Universal Background Checks Don’t Work, so Why Do We Want More of Them? – Skilled Shot Blog
  2. Universal Background Checks don’t work, so why do they want more?
  3. Universal Background Checks don’t work, so why do they want more? – Concealed Patriot
  4. Universal Background Checks don’t work, so why do they want more? – depolreablesunite

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: