the USA should have universal background checks

the USA should have universal background checks while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks, at least in general there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. http://www.nij.gov... at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people.... http://www.timesdispatch.com... what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally? or that we're stopping law abiding people? it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. The mother of the sandy hook shooter could have been someone who was rejected for a gun, and we have no reason to think she'd have been a black hoodie and went and got one, and by that the sandy hook shooting might not have occurred... just an example. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun. the more likely a person, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely they are to have not just gun murders, but murders in general: the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... also. what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident. https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net... and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above.... isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone? In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks. we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence. think about common sense points too: -think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. and even if it was just as likely, they'd be more likely to kill someone with a gun.... guns kill automatically, other weopons don't. -i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks. it's almost even human nature. -true, if you are dead set, pardon the pun, on killing, you can. but not having a gun to begin with, lowers the chances that you would kill. -and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one? -and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone? -if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience? the evidence is overwhelming.