Tell Me Again How Background Checks Stop Criminals From Getting Guns


One of the constant pushes by anti-gunners is for more extreme background checks before being able to purchase a firearm. They claim that more stringent background checks would prevent mass shootings and would prevent gun violence.

But, out of one gun control “paradise,” the state of Washington, we have a clear example of why background checks of any kind will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms. A story published by the Associated Press tells us that a gun store in Gorst, Washington, reported 98 guns stolen in a break in. The Kitsap County Sherrif’s office said that $11,000 in rewards is being offered for information which would lead to a conviction.

Another store, in Seqium, Washington, reports that 30 guns were stolen. The ATF is investigating both incidents.


There were 128 firearms stolen in just those two thefts, both of which happened within the past month. At this point, no arrests have been made. No one has been convicted. No guns have been recovered.

Basically, those guns are out on the street, and, frankly, it’s pretty unlikely that all of those guns will be recovered in the future. That means that someone (probably more than one person) already has their hands on nearly 130 firearms without a background check.

Tell me again how background checks are going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

This is the insane thing that anti-gunners won’t acknowledge: background checks don’t prevent gun violence. They don’t prevent someone from getting their hands on a firearm. There is always someone willing to obtain a firearm by some other method regardless of whether it is legal or not.

And I shouldn’t have to point this out, but, to be clear, the fact that these firearms were stolen means that anyone who has one of these firearms is in possession of stolen property, so they would (generally speaking) already be criminals. Background checks didn’t prevent that from happening.

So, the next time that your anti-gunner neighbor wants to argue that stricter background checks will prevent guns falling into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them, point them towards this article. Reality shows that background checks don’t work. The burden of proof is on anti-gunners to show that they can do something different with it that can make it do anything of use. So far, though, they haven’t given any of that proof.



  1. They don’t ! It’s just a way to keep up with legal America gun owners . They could care less about criminals. As 99% of Washington is all criminals that break the law and get by with it .
    Plus they allow anything and everything to stroll into America . Every time an illegal kills an American Especially if that person is white . They get off without any justice or deportation.
    The new report out of Washington is Isis and other terrorists are coming into America. Really !!!!!! A first grader could have told them that .

  2. Background checks won’t keep guns out of criminal hands and ALL lawmakere know it. Background checks can only point out what a person has already done or not done and they cannot predict the future. Lawmakers have a different agenda: disarming the private citizen in the name of power.

    • Absolutely true! “Lawmakers” are only out to remove any resistance to their power grab from the American people, and armed American citizens will be an insurmountable obstacle! Ergo, their attempts to criminalize legitimate gun owners, while gun wielding criminals are generally back on the street before the police have finished their arrest reports!

  3. Background checks will never stop criminals for obtaining guns. If they can’t do it legally, they will do it illegally. There will be plenty of black market guns available if you’re willing to pay the price. Just like prohitition, Americans will always find ways of providing themselves with something illegal.

  4. YA tell me again how that stops CRIMINAL GANGS from breaking into train cars to steal guns then sell them to people that can’t get them legally …

  5. FredK Liberals dom’t understand logigUpo can’t fix stupid. Yhis whole thing is instigated by the radical left. Commies don’t like an armed populace, because an armed populace can not be controlled by a tyrranical government. Background checks are a fantasy.

  6. This “CANT BE ANY CLOSER” to the BULLSEYE!!! “(IF)” I’m a criminal…Hmmm 1. Am I going to to the Gun Traders and apply for a firearm and wait 14 day fir them to come back and say..”Hey!! Your got a checkered past!!! You can’t get a firearm!!… or 2. Will I refer my query to others to whom I associate (To whom very well may be {maybe not} be of a gang of criminal group themselves)..And gave no waiting period, no check, JUST “EXTRA COST…. For a Glock …$599 at the store..wait 14 days.. No wait… $750 (and maybe a mag full too???)
    Ghee… I’m Dumb, but even I think thus would be a no brainer??
    The Background checks Just give the Powers that be a record of all the weapons in the country and IF and I do say “(IF)” the country was to go south to the State of Venezuela and have a Military State… They would know just who’s doors to knock (break in) to take away your protection and have the Iron fist over you… ‘Nuff said.

  7. And yet …. an article like this might suggest, that while proving background checks don’t work … maybe the only way to prevent gun crimes is to not make them available to sell, no massive amount of weapons in stores, where they are capable of being stolen would have meant 128 guns unable to be stolen. Remember for every good guy with a gun example out in the public’s eye … there are a couple bad guys, intent on inflicting hate and discontent … not caring about the 2nd Amendment.

  8. Background checks can be circumvented by using fallse documentation. Guns are sold all over the US wtthout any background checks through simple newspaper sales. Persons who got someone that could pass a background check for use by people wishing to commit crimes with those weapons. How many illegal guns are in the hands of dangerous people already and are not known by any law enforcement?

    We could do a lot better by laws that wil convict parents who do not keep guns out of the hnds of children.

    The medical profession does not yet have enough knowlege of disturbed people and the mental issues they have. Thus they cannoot say for sure who might use a weapon to kill. Ther3efore, non medical people do not have the proper knowledge about mantal issues that can accurately predict the likely danger of any person. Unil we do, we cannot deny people wepons.

  9. Stronger background checks will not stop crime and the anti-gunners know it won’t. For them it is just another small bite of our freedoms ultimately leading to complete confiscation and disarmament which is their end goal. So who is really lying to us when they claim “we don’t want to take away your guns, we just want more safety”.

  10. First of all this is a ploy( a play on words),created by the liberal anti gun/socialist/communist media group’s designed only to disarm Loyal Americans.The only true assault rifles are the M16 selective fire rifles,and the AK 47 another selective fire Rifle.This rifle is produced in two versions (1) semi Automatic, (2) and fully automatic not available to the public.Assault rifles cop killer bullets,dum-dum bullets,exploding bullets are all creations of the socialist media mind’s.There is military amunition that is capable of these types of task’s.There are not available to the public.

  11. I find it interesting that if a person tries to buy to much regulated sudafed or meth precursors a warrant will be issued and an arrest made. Whereas there is completely no repercussions from a denial on a background check due to a criminal history. What’s the use of a background check if there’s no repercussions for a fellen applying or falsifying an application?

Comments are closed.