Are background checks good or bad?

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

DPV - I'm disappointed that you made no effort to reconcile these two notions.

Your information and my information conflict with one another. IIRC, 75% of gun violence are criminals shooting other criminals. I cite www.gunfacts.info as a reference. Your statistics might even be in there for all I know, but I am quite certain my figure is close.

*EDIT*

Found the stats:

CRIME AND GUNS
• 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records
• 64% had been convicted of a crime
• Each had an average of 11 prior arrests (242)
• 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know
their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories)(243)
Most gun violence is between criminals, which should be the public policy focus.

Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other
criminals.(258)

 

[rbernie]

Those are VICTIM stats - not perpetrator stats. Here's some DOJ stats from 2001 to chew on while I search for the quote I had previously seen/quoted:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/fuopr.htm

EIGHTEEN PERCENT OF STATE PRISONERS COMMITTED THEIR CRIMES WHILE ARMED

Nine Percent of State Prisoners Fired Their Weapons During the Offense

WASHINGTON, D.C. – About 18 percent of state prisoners and 15 percent of federal prisoners reported in 1997 that they were armed when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. This is an increase from the 16 percent of state inmates and 12 percent of federal inmates who reported they carried a firearm in 1991.

In the 1997 interviews an estimated 9 percent of state prisoners and 2 percent of federal prisoners reported that they fired their weapon during the commission of the crime.

The data were obtained from personal interviews with a nationally representative sample of more than 18,000 state and federal prisoners, the largest survey of prison inmates sponsored by the federal government.

Among those who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to prison, about 8 percent of the state and federal prisoners carried a military-style, semiautomatic weapon. These firearms included the UZI, Tec-9, and MAC-10 handguns, the AR-15, and AK-47 rifles and the "StreetSweeper" shotguns. Possession of these models which meet certain criteria as contained in the Federal statute can be unlawful. The firearm most favored by the inmates was a handgun, which was carried by more than 80 percent of the armed inmates.

Among inmates convicted of non-violent crimes, about 8 percent of state prisoners and almost 12 percent of federal prisoners were carrying a firearm at the time of the property, drug or public order offense that resulted in their imprisonment. Of those inmates who were incarcerated for a violent crime – murder, rape, sexual attack, robbery and assault – 30 percent of state prisoners and 35 percent of federal prisoners reported they used or possessed a gun when they committed the offense.

Male offenders, younger offenders, offenders from racial and ethnic minority groups and offenders without prior convictions were the most likely to have been carrying a firearm at the time of the offense. About 15 percent of state offenders who had been on probation or parole prior to their admission to prison reported that they had been armed at the time of the offense that led to their incarceration.

Twenty-seven percent of the state prisoners who victimized a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend were armed while committing the crime, and about 8 percent used a firearm against other relatives, such as children, siblings and other family members.

About 40 percent of state inmates and 56 percent of federal inmates who carried a gun during the offense for which they were incarcerated were given sentence enhancements because of their firearm use. Those carrying firearms also received longer sentences than those without guns. Sentences for state inmates who had firearms averaged 18 years of incarceration, compared to 12 years for those without firearms.

Inmates serving time in state prisons during 1997 said they obtained their guns from the following sources in percentages:

Purchased from a retail store 8.3 percent
Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8
Purchased at a flea market 1.0
Purchased in a gun show 0.7
Obtained from friends or family 39.6
Got on the street/illegal source 39.2

The percentage of inmates who bought their guns from a retail store fell from 21 percent in 1991, when the last such survey was conducted to 14 percent in 1997. At the same time the percentage who obtained their firearms from family or friends rose from 34 percent in 1991 to 40 percent in 1997.

 

[rbernie]

Here's an interesting one (altho not directly what I was looking for):

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/vflucpr.htm

STUDY FINDS MORE THAN HALF OF ALL CONVICTED VIOLENT FELONS HAD A PRIOR RECORD

Thirty Percent of Those Who Murdered Were Younger Than 21

WASHINGTON -- Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the nation's 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction record, 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony, according to a new study released today by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

Thirty-six percent of the violent felons had at least one active criminal justice status at the time of their arrest. This included 18 percent on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and 7 percent on parole.

Six percent of the convicted violent felons were under the age of 18, and 25 percent were younger than 21, 10 percent of the convicted murderers were under the age of 18, and 30 percent were under 21.

The data was gathered from a report that analyzed a sample of 9,000 convicted violent felons representing 33,000 cases from state courts in the most populous counties. These cases were selected during seven separate studies conducted in even-numbered years from 1990 through 2002. A sample of felony cases filed during the month of May was selected in each of these years. They were included in the analyses if the defendants were convicted of a violent felony.

During the 1990 to 2002 period, 18 percent of the felony convictions studied were for violent offenses, including 7 percent for assault and 6 percent for robbery.

Fifty percent of those convicted of a violent felony received a prison sentence and an additional 31 percent received a jail sentence. Nearly all (96 percent) murderers were sentenced to prison. A majority of those convicted of robbery (69 percent) or rape (62 percent) were also sentenced to prison. About one-fifth of the rape and robbery offenders were sentenced to jail.

For those convicted of felony assault, equal percentages (38 percent) were sentenced to prison
and jail. Nearly all violent felons not sentenced to incarceration were sentenced to serve a term of probation. The median prison sentence length was 20 years for murder, 10 years for rape, five years for robbery, and four years for assault.

The report, "Violent Felons in Large Urban Counties" (NCJ-205289) was written by BJS statistician Brian A. Reaves. Following publication, the report can be found at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vfluc.htm

So am I to believe that greater than sixty percent of all convicted violent felons had no previous felony conviction that NICS would have picked up?

 

[rbernie]

Another interesting series of data points from the 2005 report on Brady check stats: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/bcft05.txt

* 1.6% of the 8.3 million applications for firearm transfers or permits in 2005 were rejected by the FBI (66,700 applications)or State and local agencies(65,200 applications).

* The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosive's(ATF) field offices investigated 9,575 National Instant Criminal Background Check System(NICS)denials that were referred by the FBI in 2005.

* In 2005 U.S. attorney offices accepted for prosecution 135 NICS denial cases investigated by ATF.

In 2005, 130,000 folks were denied legal access to a firearm, of which sixty seven thousand purchases were blocked by the FBI. Of those sixty seven thousand FBI-blocked transactions, less than ten thousand represented denials worthy of ATFE investigation and only 135 were cases suitable for Federal prosecution. H'okay......

161,000 appeals of denials from 1999 to 2005; 57,000 reversed

I'm sure that the more than TEN THOUSAND folk who were inappropriately denied the right to purchase a firearm every year didn't mind being inconvenienced; it did result in one hundred and thirty five Bad Guys getting their just rewards.

 

[22-rimfire]

I'm sure that the more than TEN THOUSAND folk who were inappropriately denied the right to purchase a firearm every year didn't mind being inconvenienced; it did result in one hundred and thirty five Bad Guys getting their just rewards.

I assume you were being sarcastic. ....if only one life is saved, it's worth it. right? Now, I'm being sarcastic.

 

[kludge]

rberniie - great stuff!

Inmates serving time in state prisons during 1997 said they obtained their guns from the following sources in percentages:

Purchased from a retail store 8.3 percent
Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8
Purchased at a flea market 1.0
Purchased in a gun show 0.7
Obtained from friends or family 39.6
Got on the street/illegal source 39.2

Gotta close that gun show "loop hole"!

I wonder how many of thoise "family/friends" got 10 years?

I wonder how many of those street/illegal souces got ratted out and served 10 years?

If the number is "not very many" then lets put our efforts there instead of harrasing law abiding people in their private transactions.

But it's those gun shows that are the problem?

This statistic in and of itself proves that it's not about guns, it's about control, and registration, to someday eventually make it easier to confiscate guns.

Form 4473 and background checks are nothing more than a back door registration program.

 

[czbegenner]

That is what i was talking about ,We need to check who we allow in office,
The senate and congress makes all the rules,lets make sure there playing fair
with law abidding people.We are too quick to say ("well it wont affect me")
or ("My vote don't matter") Well it does,If we get who is for us in office and we as Americans whole them to be accountable to what they say,then this will be different.

 

[2RCO]

I love the way that everyone is quoting one Franklin Quote as their basis for their whole argument. Although I agree with the quote in most cases--I despise the Patriot Act and considerable other effects of the cowering ater 911 but I don't think Franklin who was a rational individual would have agreed that a background check was a sign of fear.


Hell why have an age limit on gun purchase? Maybe we should let any 10 year old buy a post 1986 AK or drive for that matter. Why do we have any laws or rules in this country?

 

[rbernie]

Hell why have an age limit on gun purchase?

Time was, it was the job of the parent to set the age at which point a youngster could start to use potentially dangerous tools (e.g. ax, gun). Evidently, we now need the government to do our parenting for us. <sigh>

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/vflucpr.htm

Thirty Percent of Those Who Murdered Were Younger Than 21

It appears to need to do a better job.

 

[2RCO]

Rbernie-- Time was when parents actually cared about their kids! That we need to work on.

 

[rbernie]

That we need to work on.

So how does encouraging the .gov to be The Nanny accomplish that?

 

[Dick1911]

While I don't have a problem with background checks, I don't believe they really prevent someone intent on getting a gun from getting one. As with all laws they only impact the law abiding citizen since by definition a criminal doesn't care about the law. I think most people know that so I believe that all attempts by politicians and others to regulate firearms are just small steps along the path to making ownership illegal and banning them outright.

 

[buzz_knox]

When we have background checks on the purchase of other items used in crimes (computers, cars, gas, books, etc), I'll support them on firearms.

 

[Tsonda]

I did not read the whole thread but I must say the results are not what I expected.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Well all I can say is I support background checks, please look kindly upon me.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

A Bad Idea With No Flaws

Originally Posted by ArfinGreebly
But it DOES soften people up to the idea that RESTRICTING ACCESS BY HONEST PEOPLE is somehow not an encroachment or infringement. Because it doesn't hurt many or it doesn't hurt much.

As a matter of principle I am going to play the 'what if' game here once more:

If, and this is entirely theoretical here, a background check system had absolutely no flaws and did not deny someone an instant purchase if they were legal and allowed to purchase, would you be for it?

A closer reading of what I have already written in this thread would answer that question.

No, I would not be for it.

It doesn't accomplish its stated goal. It accomplishes something quite opposite.

I'm sure it will be shrugged off as "anecdotal" but when we had less gun control (including no background checks) we had less crime.

The argument can be made, "yeah, but 'things' are different now."

Yeah.

We have more socialism now. Included in that fabric is the "more regulation of things that frighten us" aspect.

Seriously.

Anyone who believes that background checks actually do any good at all, needs to sit down with a piece of paper and draw the diagrams of how we get bad people, how we get good people, how bad people get things they want, how good people get things they want, and what effect laws have on that compound system.

The actual mechanical reality of background checks is that they do not work.

They cannot work.

It doesn't matter what the theory is, nor does it matter what the supposed intention is, neither does it matter in whose hands the function reposes.

It is an attempt to solve the wrong problem.

It frightens me a little that so many people are so fooled by the seeming rationale and the false framework that lend plausibility to the approach.

How is it that so many smart people can't work this problem from one end to the other and gain an understanding of the fallacies that drive it?

Has our socialist education system succeeded that well?

It is my solemn hope that our best and brightest are not so enthralled with the assurances of a government that is infamous for its ability to screw up a wet dream that they cling to this belief that -- just this once -- the government got it right.

I know there has to be more intellectual horsepower than that among our readership.

 

[wjustinen]

If, and this is entirely theoretical here, a background check system had absolutely no flaws and did not deny someone an instant purchase if they were legal and allowed to purchase, would you be for it?

No, negative, never.

Yeah, I know, why don't I stop beating around the bush and say what I really mean? I guess I'm still hoping for a call offering me a job as a diplomat.

 

[2RCO]

Arfin and others,

Right now we have Mucho bigger Fish to fry other than Background Checks. Why don't we focus on getting the 2A back period..
I want to be able to buy an MP5 for less money than it takes to buy a good used Vette. I want AKM's at Sub-Sahara African prices. I also would like to see American Gun Manufacturers stay in business.

 

[Werewolf]

Why don't we focus on getting the 2A back period..

If we're going to get it back it will be the same way we lost it; incrementally, one small step at a time.

 

[sterling180]

Background checks,particulary in Western Europe,the USA and in Canada,were designed to stop criminals and psychos from getting legal weaponry.It is a good idea,to some extent,but it isn't watertight either,or as Shark nets aren't always effective in Australia and in South Africa.There will always be irresponsible morons or nutcases,that will occasionally 'slip the net,so to speak,and would probably cause alot of damage,injuries and fatalities,from legally-owned weapons,followed by the bleating of the antis-along with their anti-gun and bleeding hearts public relations,rubbish.

 

[Picknlittle]

There are far too many questions and issues that affect other questions and issues to come up with a simple solution.

Do I like background checks? Absolutely not!

Do I believe they are helpful? No! They just verify that a law abiding citizen is making a purchase, while the criminal is still getting guns in back alleys or by stealing them.

Do I think the criteria used to allow or disallow gun purchases are fair? Not at all.

While I do support victims rights to a large degree, I believe we have made it far to easy to ruin someones life, merely because a couple has a dispute and one side, usually the woman, gets a restraining order or order of protection for an incident that hasn't actually happened or isn't going to happen.

Also, I see crimes that seem to fit labels.
There are acts of stupidity(to include immaturity), acts of aggression (to include violence), acts of desperation (not the the result of mental illness), and of course acts or mental instability. Oh! I almost forgot. The acts of third party busy bodies that misinterpret what they see or hear and stick their nose on family business or discipline!

Do I think they are all be dealt with the same? No.
Do I think they all should lose their rights forever? Some yes, some no.
Do I believe rehabilitation works? Probably more often than it's given credit for, but certainly not always.

Here is something that bugs me. Victims rights activist have made lifelong criminals out of virtually everyone who goes to prison. These folks are never considered to have paid their dept regardless and are forced to confess their sins to every potential employer or, educator or program administrator for ever.

Very broad descriptions are used to categorize sexual predators, pedophiles, violent criminals, etc... using questionable standards to permanently mark a person for life. Then we wonder why they turn to acts of desperation because those whom are really trying to better themselves and put the past behind them can't find work, or funding for training.

If the dept is paid, release them to become productive. If the debt isn't paid then keep them locked up. Remove the stigma that fuels desperation and if they return to criminal activity, slam them and slam them hard. I don't even buy the three strikes crap. If they go back to their old ways, sic'em!. If not, leave them alone and restore their rights.

By all means, stop making it so easy for a bitchy spouse or girlfriend, or a pissed off teenager to screw a guy or a parent's life because they can.

I know this happens because I've seen it happen to several young men and families over the years. Even when it's determined a mistake or false accusation was made the stigma doesn't do away, nor does the record.

 

[czbegenner]

You have to be very careful nowdays,Some women will try to get the male
to hit her so she can get him in trouble(but that's another issue) AS stated
the bad guys can always get weapons,while the law abiding person sometimes
get done wrong.How can they tell you how many weapons you to have,if your a law abidding person.It's more than meets the eye here

 

[ctdonath]

While we all "know" that driving is not a right nonetheless

I contend the right to vehicular transportation is not an enumerated right because it was so obviously a right that our Founding Fathers never conceived that such a right would be infringed. This is precisely why some argued against a Bill Of Rights: that the non-inclusion of some obvious right would be construed as those rights not being rights.

Can anyone actually conceive of our Founding Fathers saying "why sure, the State has the power to tell people they can't travel using their own carriage"?

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Bernie, I read your stats and I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

Purchased from a retail store 8.3 percent
Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8
Purchased at a flea market 1.0
Purchased in a gun show 0.7
Obtained from friends or family 39.6
Got on the street/illegal source 39.2

This simply means that the crooks are preferring to keep things illegal, which is hardly a surprise. I feel safe to say it's because they will not get turned down. They are not going into stores or shops because they will probably get denied. Without background checks I feel the numbers would substantially shift. I know if that were the case and I were a crook, I'd walk into the local gunshop instead of taking my chances on a hand-me-down.

 

[M_Olson]

This simply means that the crooks are preferring to keep things illegal, which is hardly a surprise. I feel safe to say it's because they will not get turned down. They are not going into stores or shops because they will probably get denied. Without background checks I feel the numbers would substantially shift. I know if that were the case and I were a crook, I'd walk into the local gunshop instead of taking my chances on a hand-me-down.

and if you were a crook, would you rob or burglarize someone for their gun? or would you go down to the store to get it if you could? either way they are going to get it, it can easily be said that background checks increase the motive for crime. you arent taking your arguments to their logical conclusion, instead relying on the purely emotionally driven response of "they keep them from getting them legally". does it really matter how they get them? the fact is that they do get them.