Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, I'd be glad to which is odd because I wouldn't think that I would have to explain this to anyone but the most rockheaded gun rights absolutist.
First it demonstrates that background checks stopped over one million people who had no right to a firearm didn't get one through legal firearms dealers. Over 1,000,000.
No it indicates that over 1,000,000 people were denied a purchase by the NICS system, it does not prove that the people who were denied were indeed validly denied. NICS is not ideal nor is it perfect, and people are on occasion denied for no reason than they bear a similar name in a similar place to a person who is prohibited. a DoJ report in 2009 discovered that of 71,010 denials, 66,329 did not meet the actual criteria for denying a sale, that's a 93% false positive rate. That's pre-investigation of the remaining 4,691 cases that do meet actual denial criteria at time of sale, of those half (2,390 cases) were not even denials, but delays, requiring deeper investigation prior to determining whether a person was or was not a prohibited person, and since they were not hard denials, the deeper investigation came back clean, so there's another 3.5% to add to the 93% false positive.
Now that may or may not be a concern, what should be more concerning is that people who are denied by a false positive return on NICS (i.e. they are prohibited) would lead one to believe that people who are actually prohibited are receiving false negatives it is impossible to identify this number (since we do not keep records of completed NICS checks). If false negatives follow false positives, I'm not all that confident in the whole system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
Second it demonstrates that background checks (as you note) are not an undue burden to the vast majority of gun owners. So it shouldn't be unreasonable to impose background checks on all private sales to at least further close off guns from reaching those who have no right to possess to them. Will it cure the problem of gun violence, absolutely not just laws against anything stop any particular crime from being committed. Which oddly enough is the only objection that gun absolutist seem capable of coming up with.
No it does not demonstrate that it is not an undue burden, it just proves that people are prepared to accept that they need a background check prior to a gun sale from a dealer. I don't need to run someone's background to sell them a car, a house, a TV, a cell phone, or a pallet of NPK fertilizer. Even if I sold someone all of them at the same time, I would never be in danger of liability if they immediately started cooking crystal methamphetamine in the kitchen of that house, and making deals by the phone and drop offs using the car. Or worse, make a car bomb with a cell phone detonator.
As mentioned in this thread, Washington State recently added just such a proscription into law, and people stood outside police stations swapping guns in violation of the law. No prosecutions took place, because that law is unenforceable. Prior to becoming enforceable you would need registration of all firearms, and that is prohibited by law and confirmed by the SCOTUS. I have a gun, where did I get it from? It doesn't matter, because unless you can prove I obtained it illegally, there is nothing to see here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
Your argument is rather specious on two levels. Dismissing the prevention of over a million people prohibited from buy a gun as being ineffective is pretty disingenuous to say the least particularly when making such a law more effective has been fought tooth and nail. I suppose it would be better that that one million purchases had just gone ahead. Of course that is the sort typical sort sophistry one has come to expect.
Your argument is equally specious, even if we take a 1,000,000 non-false positive denial rate from 156,000,000 you have no grounds to make a claim that the person who obtained a firearm after being denied would have gone on and committed a crime with it. You would be speculating completely how many crimes it has prevented, if any. Given that from what we can tell only 3.5% of all denials are justified, all it would mean is that 35,000 denials were warranted, not what any one person who was justifiably denied would have subsequently done.
Your original point was that we already have background checks, that was incorrect as "Most states" do not require a background checks for private sales.
Maryland does not require background checks on shotguns or rifles (non-assault). How about Georgia and many of the other states that are a major source for illegal guns, what is their requirement.
Would you want to enforce your bolded statement, what does that even mean, legally. Once again how do you know the person in a private sale.
Yes some people illegally obtain guns, so?
It is extremely likely that those private sales
would pass a background check if they had to.
Those that wouldn't, would still occur, because
criminals don't follow the rules.
think it should be a city ordinance -each city - why? because it's very different out went in some bear/ mountain lion country- than in a heavy populated city. NO more gun shows- flea markets style- selling like candy-- then sell porn out right or booze even tobacco products -- it is lawful to have- but carries restrictions... restrict one thing but not another? - just need a tightening here -and NO MORE NRA LOBBYING_ do away with all lobbying for that matter-
It is extremely likely that those private sales
would pass a background check if they had to.
Those that wouldn't, would still occur, because
criminals don't follow the rules.
Something like 40% of gun sales are private, who knows if they could pass a background check. There have been many cases where a neighbor or relative traferred a gun to someone they thought they knew. I recall the girl in Webster, NY that bought an AR15 for her neighbor who in turn killed 2 firemen.
What is the point in having a background check when almost half go unmonitored, they should be strengthening the law rather than pointing out the deficiencies. Right off the bat they should increase the 3 day waiting period if they want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Something like 40% of gun sales are private, who knows if they could pass a background check. There have been many cases where a neighbor or relative traferred a gun to someone they thought they knew. I recall the girl in Webster, NY that bought an AR15 for her neighbor who in turn killed 2 firemen.
What is the point in having a background check when almost half go unmonitored, they should be strengthening the law rather than pointing out the deficiencies. Right off the bat they should increase the 3 day waiting period if they want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
You left some of that AR 15 story out. He couldn't qualify to purchase so she became what is called a straw purchaser, which is itself illegal. It's a federal violation.
If I remember correctly she was tried and convicted for that.
I can just see it now ... a Chicago thug wants a gun to rob a gas station for drug money ... he heads down town to a known thug gun seller ... the seller shows the thug his guns for sell ... the buyer picks out a AR-15 and a 9mm semi-auto double stack ... the seller then says ... great, just fill out this background check paperwork and I will get it processed with the FBI ... and you should have your gun in a week
Think about it ... mandatory background checks only applies to law abiding citizens who know they will pass a background check.
A mandatory background check solves nothing.
A thug or mental person will not follow any law to comply with a background check when they know they won't pass it.
For those who have something to hide then background checks are bad.
For those of us with nothing to hide then nothing wrong with background checks.
If you have nothing to hide than permits to purchase are easily obtainable and should be required.
If you have a permit to carry like many do a purchase takes less time than getting your drivers license renewed.
IMO it's only those with questionable backgrounds that are against background checks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
