Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How do you argue against background checks when the DOJ has statistics about 2% being denied where half of that 2% are felons?
Don't flame me, I'm looking for arguments against these numbers.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf
Here is an idea.
Instead of a mandatory background check, setup a website that a private firearm seller could do a *voluntary* and *free* background check on a prospective buyer - without the firearm info. Each check would have a certification # with it.
I would be willing to bet that many private sellers would only be too happy to run such a check when they sell a firearm just to protect themselves from future liability or criticism. They could save a hard copy of the check and keep it in their records (which could be disposed of when they die or whenever they wish).
I proposed this a year ago.
Voluntary background checks is the way to go. It should not be free though - if you want to check someone's background, pay for it yourself, don't shift this expense to other taxpayers.
Shall not be infringed
Here is an idea.
Instead of a mandatory background check, setup a website that a private firearm seller could do a *voluntary* and *free* background check on a prospective buyer - without the firearm info. Each check would have a certification # with it.
I would be willing to bet that many private sellers would only be too happy to run such a check when they sell a firearm just to protect themselves from future liability or criticism. They could save a hard copy of the check and keep it in their records (which could be disposed of when they die or whenever they wish).
You already can,
Just don't sell to anyone who doesn't have a current CPL. In "shall issue" states, it's an easy way to verify you are selling to someone who can legally own a gun, I know Oregon is a mess right now, but in general, they are not that difficult to obtain.
What is done with those denials? Currently it is against the law to lie on the form. If you fill out the form truthfully the FFL must turn you down without even running a background check if you are a prohibited person. In that sense it is not illegal for a prohibited person to attempt to acquire a firearm. If the prohibited person lies on the form that is when the NICS check is supposed to catch it with a possible penalty of up to 10 years under 18 U.S. Code § 924. Of the 2% that are denials, with half being felons, how many are investigated and prosecuted? How can anyone say that the current law is ineffective and we need more laws when the current law is not even used?
A lot of gun owners are not against background checks, they are against the Gov't registration the anit's are tacking on to it.
Background check systems have been proposed where records were not kept (so no registration), but the gun-control folks dismiss them out of hand. This makes it abundantly clear that what they really want is registration. Gun control is not about guns so much as it is about control. They don't care so much if people have guns so long as they have the control.
How do you argue against background checks when the DOJ has statistics about 2% being denied where half of that 2% are felons?
Don't flame me, I'm looking for arguments against these numbers.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf
I got this from the Brady Campaign site (know your enemies, right?)
About Gun Violence | Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but should have explained my statement better.I disagree.
Most gun control advocates (not the general populace, but the orgs, lobbyists, etc.) very much care if people have guns.
Not going to happen. I will not pay for them to give me a permit (which is by definition an exception to do something that otherwise would be illegal) to exercise rights that both the US and State constitution clearly guarantee against infringement by the government.You already can,
Just don't sell to anyone who doesn't have a current CPL. In "shall issue" states, it's an easy way to verify you are selling to someone who can legally own a gun, I know Oregon is a mess right now, but in general, they are not that difficult to obtain.
I think it may actually be less than that. You are right in that only about half are actual felons who are disallowed from owning a gun. The other half are usually improperly filling out the forms (typos are not a crime).
What's actually telling is the number of those felon/denials that actually get arrested. I found in Oregon, 2010, it was 0.05% of all background checks (90 denials leading to arrest about of ~168,300 background checks performed) that actually resulted in arrest. You could also work that as (90/~1200=) less than 8% of felon/denials are actually deemed serious enough for the law to intervene. (note: I'm basing the 1200 on the 2393 denials in 2010, dividend by half to match what seems to be the case for 2013, if the gun-control advocates are to be believed).
Add some information about criminals who get arrested using a gun in a crime (you may see this as "80% of criminals get their guns from private sellers without a background check): ~39% buy off black-market (i.e. mostly stolen guns), ~39% from family or friends (exempt in most recent background check bills, or straw-purchasing); that ads up to the 80% quote above.
About 1 in 10 stole their gun specifically for their own use (closer to ~8%), and the remainder someone got them from licensed gun dealers (lied on forms, incomplete background database, crooked FFL dealer, etc). In almost every case, what the criminal was doing was already against the law, or the individual was likely to already be prohibited from possessing a firearm (about 70-85% of killers had some type of prior criminal history)
Here's a couple other threads with a little more that might help, although it is Oregon focused.
1. Oregon background check numbers during heraring
2. 80% quote by the other side.
Oregon catalyst also had a few good points as well.
1. Records retention of Oregon background check data
2. Oregon doesn't need expanded background checks
3. Oregon media peddling partisan poll on background checks.