44. Who really opposes Universal Background Checks?

I'm really tired of the debate, so I'll just poke fun at it. Everyone who knows me knows that I am biased against the careless and wild adoration and accumulation of guns. There's an emotional aspect to this, as I have been the victim of gun violence. In my case the only thing that would have helped is less guns, not more good guys with guns.

The one thing that frustrates me is the reluctance to do anything. The arguments against universal background checks from the NRA are repetitious as ever. Their argument goes a little like this: "We shouldn't compel a universal background check for all sales of all weapons because it wouldn't stop all crime and people could still get guns from the black market". However, they tacitly acknowledge that it could have stopped some. Over 3 million denials since the Brady act in the nineties. Not all of them found their way to the black market. Lives have been saved, guaranteed. The link from the NRA also shows how weird their position is. They are both arguing against a universal background check for all sales of all weapons and arguing that universal background already exists. It's Heisenbergian.

The fact is, it's still too easy to avoid the checks. Not all states, not all guns and not all sellers are covered by the law.

Make up your own mind about where you stand on universal background checks. Read the NRAs verborrea and read Gifford's attempts.  Part of the problem is that the data is messy, scarce and interpretable in many ways. However, we know we will not silver bullet this and it is my personal opinion that universal backgrounds is a necessary step in the right direction both by providing better data and by denying guns in the times that matter.