Representative Chris Harker is not a friend of Gun Owners

dlurvey · Feb 24, 2014

I strongly suspect he's a lackey of Bloomberg and Mayors against Illegal guns since he linked to their website to prove that back ground checks are effective. People in his district need to start calling him out.

Dan,

Thank you for writing with your thoughts on background checks. I understand you are concerned about how background checks may impact you or your loved ones. I also understand you believe this bill won't do anything to curb the unlawful transfer, or possession, of guns.

Currently this bill is not before me in the House, and I am not sure I will have an opportunity to vote on the bill. I do, however, believe in common sense gun laws that do not interfere with the legitimate rights of gun owners. Research indicates there is wide spread support among Oregonians for background check when transferring or selling firearms. Additionally, studies indicates background checks result in a substantial decrease in gun related crimes, including suicide, aggravated assault, and domestic violence within states that have expanded background checks.

If you have further comments or questions as we move forward in this legislative session, please don't hesitate to reach out to my office again.

Yours in service,
Chris

----------------------------------
Representative Chris Harker
District 34 Beaverton
900 Court St NE H485
Salem, OR 97301
503.986.1434

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/a2/3/1982/MAIG_-_2_-_Background_checks_national_charts_-_b.pdf

erudne · Feb 24, 2014

These minions have been offered a choice between Silver or Lead and have made their choice, subverting their duty to the citizens who hired them. That's Treason

timac · Feb 24, 2014

Here is the clue to his anti 2nd leanings "common sense gun laws ".

tiggers97 · Feb 25, 2014

Well, I think I got the first one busted. Now to find time to bust the others.

note to self: all their graphs show different dates. Wonder if someone would get different results for other dates...

Anyone want to help

Post your link to articles that show contrary.

skjos · Feb 25, 2014

Some background:
For this data, only CA, NY, IL, MA, CT, RI, NJ, HI* require checks on all purchases.
CO and DE are new and are not included in the data.
PA, MD, NC*, NE*, MI*, IA*, only require checks on handguns.
*Of these states HI, IA, MI, NE, NC do not require background checks on CPL holders.

Chart one - look at the scale, this is a statistical blip. Also the exclusion of NY is fishy, 2.7% of the US population lives there.

Chart two - they are trying to say "if background checks were applied suicides would go down by .000388% percent", but in reality those 4 people per 100,000 would just find another way.

Chart three - I find it really fishy that 3 of the 4 states excluded for "insufficient data" require a background check for private sales. Just adding in Chicago's (IL) firearm homicides and non-negligent manslaughters would put the background check bar at 60 per 100,000. Maybe that's why they are excluding that data, or why they are choosing Aggravated Assaults instead of homicides.

Chart four - again this is statically insignificant. This 39% is 6 officers per 10,000,000 people over a 10 year span.

Chart five – the data is likely cherry picked from 2009. However, please note that it is already illegal to move "traffic" a gun across state lines without a background check. I would say that this chart speaks more to those that would ignore the law if implemented.