New study on background checks

[boogerhook]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/health/gun-laws-background-checks-reduce-deaths/index.html

Personally, I have no problem with universal bg checks, but I doubt they would be nearly as effective as the researchers suggest.

Read More

 

[edslhead]

They need to do research on those researchers. Spend a bunch more money on nothing.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It would be interesting to see a study of where criminals got their guns.
Perhaps a comparison of the number of guns used in crimes vs. legally owned guns.
A comparison of the number of legal firearms used safely vs. those involved in accidents would interesting as well .
I would like to see these studies conducted by a neutral party with no ties to a pro-gun or anti-gun group.
Andy

 

[Koda]

The only problem I have with background checks is the make model and serial number part.

Thats gotta be the most anti gun biased article full of lies I've seen yet. Its as if the entire study assumed that only law abiding gun owners kill people. The article "study" says background checks on guns, ammunition and firearm to bullet identification (microstamping) technology will reduce gun deaths by "more than 90%"

It would be interesting to see a study of where criminals got their guns.

about a year ago the University of Chicago put out a study that included an in-depth look at exactly where criminals get their guns. Despite the study being anti-gun biased, they actually did a good job on the where part... (if I recall they were using that info to justify their overall anti gun argument... but I didn't read everything). The result of the UoC study concluded, quite accurately, that not only do criminals not get their guns thru private sales (internet, craigs list etc.) they actually specifically avoided private sales due to the risk. The number one way was thru straw purchases, usually gang related and then theft.

Apparently the Boston University study people didnt talk to the University of Chicago study people....

 

[2A2Dend]

The only problem I have with background checks is the make model and serial number part.

Thats gotta be the most anti gun biased article full of lies I've seen yet. Its as if the entire study assumed that only law abiding gun owners kill people. The article "study" says background checks on guns, ammunition and firearm to bullet identification (microstamping) technology will reduce gun deaths by "more than 90%"

People with those claims need to go back in the closet. That's effin hilarious.

 

[Koda]

I bet that study was funded by Bloomberg and his cronies...

 

[boogerhook]

at least they did not call for another AWB ... maybe an appeasement tactic

 

[kilimanjaro]

Reduce gun deaths by 90? Who are they lying to? Colorado has UBCs now, guess what, private sales weren't 40% of sales, they were less than 10%, IIRC. UBCs for ammunition? We used to have to show ID and sign the bound book at the store, remember that? Reduction in suicide? It used to be illegal to commit suicide, lot of good that law did.

Maybe if I was a progressive leftist and saw the world as corrupt, my neighbors as inbred redneck Neanderthals, the environment as destroyed, and myself as a worthless white male who doesn't deserve the country his ancestors stole from the helpless minorities of the earth, well, I'd want to kill myself, too.

 

[kilimanjaro]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/health/gun-laws-background-checks-reduce-deaths/index.html

Personally, I have no problem with universal bg checks, but I doubt they would be nearly as effective as the researchers suggest.

Let us check out the basic concept offered here, Universal Background Checks (UBCs). Oregon and Washington mandate these by law, just as proposed in this alleged study, perhaps the murder rates or numbers in these two states have dropped by some fair portion of the 90% reduction claimed by these people. What, the rates have stayed the same or even slightly increased?

Gee, that idea is bogus. Guess that 90% is going to have to come entirely from UBCs on ammunition sales. But at least we can drop this part of the proposal from consideration by intelligent persons, since the science doesn't support the theory.

 

[boogerhook]

with more than 300m firearms in private hands the genie is out of the bottle, even if we have UBC going forward, it will do little to keep them out of criminal hands ...

 

[whiskeybill]

Maybe a universal respect for human life would reduce the rate of homicides and suicides. Just a random thought.

 

[nammac]

Appearantly the Communist News Network (CNN) is doing the ground work for the liberals again. What a load of manure...

Want to reduce gun violence in America, Mr Obama, use your phone and your pen to direct the sitting Attorney General of the United States to begin rounding up and prosecuting those guilty of gun violence in Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Los Angeles and all the other major metropolitan areas in the USA.

Under this administration, prosecutions for violation of federal gun laws are at an all time low...

Go figure...

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

theres nothing that EVER will stop bad guys killing people. if they want to kill theyll find a way to kill.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

BBSS

Big BS Study!

 

[DuneHopper]

Nothing against the OP, but I have 100% a problem with background check.

Let's look at this first of all the issue we claim for a background check is to stop criminals from getting firearms. That is the claim its what the say over and over.
The reality is BGC, do not address the criminal mind which scoffs at any and all laws.
BGC, do not address human nature period.

Let me give you a case in point. You are told that there are two freeways going to the exact same place in fact lets use liberal-antis California they have 99 and 5 that parallel down the state, then I tell you both have laws that say the speed limit no more then 65. But I tell you Highway 99 has no police, no radar no enforcement. Hi-5 has cops, radar and checkpoints. You are told now go from Sacramento to L.A. as fast as you can and don't break the law. Why some may obey the law many would pick 99 and drive as fast as they could even some of you. Its all in us that ability to look the other way or stretch the law a bit. BUT... a Criminal looks at laws as a challenge to feed that arrogance that they are smarter then the police. It also give them some justification to know they are sticking it to the man. Its what most gangs flourish on as justification.

A BGC, is the same thing. Criminals see these laws and want to break them.
And whats missing is politicians know this heck I know this as a fact.
I am not a criminal, not a felon, never been arrested, but if I was given 24 hours to drive to
liberal antigun California I know where I can get a gun without numbers and be back next day.
If I would not face any prosecution I would do it, why I don't is I am law abiding citzen.
If I know it then criminals know this, and they do not care. Do you think the illegal gun business is silent in Liberal-Anti gun California ? No even the politicians are involved and one got arrested. The smoke screen is BGC, its what is needed by them, its what works for them.
Its all one giant lie and everyone is in on it except for the sheep following anti-gun people who believe what they are fed is truth when it is anything but.

BGC, work............they work as well as telling people not to speed on an ummonitored freeway.
You make a law and people will be sure to break it, and/or ignore it completely

 

[boogerhook]

Nothing against the OP, but I have 100% a problem with background check.

Let's look at this first of all the issue we claim for a background check is to stop criminals from getting firearms. That is the claim its what the say over and over.
The reality is BGC, do not address the criminal mind which scoffs at any and all laws.
BGC, do not address human nature period.

Let me give you a case in point. You are told that there are two freeways going to the exact same place in fact lets use liberal-antis California they have 99 and 5 that parallel down the state, then I tell you both have laws that say the speed limit no more then 65. But I tell you Highway 99 has no police, no radar no enforcement. Hi-5 has cops, radar and checkpoints. You are told now go from Sacramento to L.A. as fast as you can and don't break the law. Why some may obey the law many would pick 99 and drive as fast as they could even some of you. Its all in us that ability to look the other way or stretch the law a bit. BUT... a Criminal looks at laws as a challenge to feed that arrogance that they are smarter then the police. It also give them some justification to know they are sticking it to the man. Its what most gangs flourish on as justification.

A BGC, is the same thing. Criminals see these laws and want to break them.
And whats missing is politicians know this heck I know this as a fact.
I am not a criminal, not a felon, never been arrested, but if I was given 24 hours to drive to
liberal antigun California I know where I can get a gun without numbers and be back next day.
If I would not face any prosecution I would do it, why I don't is I am law abiding citzen.
If I know it then criminals know this, and they do not care. Do you think the illegal gun business is silent in Liberal-Anti gun California ? No even the politicians are involved and one got arrested. The smoke screen is BGC, its what is needed by them, its what works for them.
Its all one giant lie and everyone is in on it except for the sheep following anti-gun people who believe what they are fed is truth when it is anything but.

BGC, work............they work as well as telling people not to speed on an ummonitored freeway.
You make a law and people will be sure to break it, and/or ignore it completely

Understood and partly agreed. If we could only lock up the dangerous people, then we would not "need" any checks.

 

[Hawaiian]

Universal Background Checks will do very little to stop gun violence. The gang bangers are recruiting new members with a clean record so they can do straw purchases for them. Mass shootings, domestic violence are not what is killing our young people, it is the gang bangers killing each other and anyone else standing around in the vicinity. But the politicians and anti's avoid discussing this fact. Their current empty the jail programs are releasing those convicted of illegal possession of a firearm the next day. Even those with multiple convictions. They are being put back on the streets where they get a new gun and continue on as normal. The courts wait until they actually shoot someone before they take action and lock em up.
It is sad that the politician's, courts, and the anti's don't really care about the loss of life and gun violence. They care more about being politically correct in their own small world while turning a blind eye to reality.

 

[Koda]

Understood and partly agreed. If we could only lock up the dangerous people, then we would not "need" any checks.

the problem background checks are a defacto registration scheme, lays the groundwork for prohibition later on. There are ways we can do background checks without the make model and serial number

take a look at the video I shared above in this thread, to see how effective background checks are on reducing "gun violence"

Myself, I agree we need background checks but without registration. Its possible but the antis have rejected that, empirical evidence of their scheme. Until then... no compromise on my part.

 

[kilimanjaro]

I'm not bothered by UBC's, checking out the person buying a gun is only good business and social practice, but at what point is it merely a useless exercise?

Myself, I have a large collection of firearms. Also a CPL. And an FFL03. I've had my background checked over 100 times for purchases alone. The CPL comes with a background check, not only before it's issued, but once a week the state database is swept just in case I've decided to be convicted of a felony for the first time in over 40 years. At what point do you say, "Enough public funds have been expended on this effort to ensure that this individual isn't a Prohibited Person under the firearms laws?"

 

[clearconscience]

Any one can make a study that says anything they want.
They can make the data collected lean whatever way they want.

The climate debate is a perfect example.

My study says 90% of other studies are full of shart.