the USA should have more background checkss

here is the study that says forty percent of sales do not include background checks. http://www.nij.gov... admittedly, it is an old study, and could have been more comprehensive. but when you consider how pervasive guns are here, and that checks are only required in certain professional sales, it's not too far fetched to conclude it's not that far off. notice, you say "checks don't necessarily". you basically admit that not everyone will go buy a gun when they can't legally. that would be a ridiculous statement to make, too. when these people, who are often just normal people with a background, don't have guns, they aren't as likely to use them when they'd otherwise commit a crime. this is by common sense, in that from my experience, when some people i know have guns, they tend to talk about using it, and such. this is also by scientific studies.... the more likely an individual is to have gun, the more likley they are to use it, as cited earlier. and, it's not just them finding alternative ways to do crimes other than guns... we see that with more guns, comes not just more gun murder, but overall murder. also, con didnt respond to the jerry springer hypothetical. those people would more likely get a gun if they had it, than something else, just cause of the psychology involved with guns. even if they were as likely to get a knife or a bat, the odds of sometone dying cause they have a gun, which kills automatically, increases tremendously. as i argued in past debates, i would not be surprised that guns are used more for defesnse than for murder. but, right now we're talking about checks, which doesn't have to do so much with taking guns from people who should be able to have them, but to do with preventing guns from getting in the wrong hands. beyond that point. even if it's all true what you says, it's only because we have so many guns to begin with. the idea, if there were two or three times more guns, that would be reasonable to assume that there would be two or three timse as many uses of self defesnse, but also that many more times of murder. if we took it the other way, and reduced guns, there would be a proportional reduction in defense and homicide. the thing that all this highlights is that we are granting rights with the understanding that more murders and violence, and perhaps yes more defense, can come..... it is a clear trade off. if we keep guns off the street in general, tht's good,... if we focus on keeping them out of the wrong hands, then that's even better, way better. i don't know the specific cultures or economics or gun laws of sweden. i can say first of all, that the studeis i cited were comprehensive, and said that the general point is that the more guns a person, state, or country has, the more murders they have. at best, you have provided a couple outliers. i wouldn't be surprised if those two counties are economically more secure and have a better overall culture.... at least sweden is known for both those points. in the USA a person is not entiteld to anything other than food stamps at least as of federal law.... it's a very economically insecure country. as to your FBI point, you are looking at raw data that focuses on individual people.... that doesn't keep track of rate of population v rate of gun use etc or specirif laws etc. notice for example that california and new york are huge states, so as would be expected, they have huge murder numbers. and again, these are pure numbers, not rates per capita or anything. the links i provided were comprehensive, they looked at individual, state, and countries, and concluded that with more guns, came not just more gun murder, but more overall murder. we can extrapalate that the presence of a gun is more likely to cause a crime than any other possible weopons or issues. also, those studies were conducted by well respected objective insitutions, such as oxford and harvard. so, no, what i'm arguing is not me spouting off opinons, this is good solid scientific information.