The White House says the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago. This study is based on data collected from a survey in 1994, just the Brady law requirements for background checks was coming into effect. (In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, while Brady law went into effect in early 1994.) In other words, this is a really old figure.You can round it down to 20% and the argument for universal background checks is still strong. Why would anyone who is honest and legitimate oppose this?
The data is available for researchers to explore at the Interuniversity consortium on political and social research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. Digging deeper, we find that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus 6 percentage points.
Moreover, when asked if he or she bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)
When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, though as we noted the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.
Please leave a comment.
Because every time a background check is done, a piece of paper gets filed. How many times do I have to tell you, Mikeb, the government can't easily take what it doesn't know about? Until we can trust your side, we want lots of guns with no paperwork whatsoever. That's grit in the gears of confiscation.
ReplyDeleteIt's also a matter of commerce between private individuals within states. That's not supposed to be subject to Federal regulation. But you regard the Constitution as out of date, so it doesn't surprise me that you reject large portions of it.
Aren't those records destroyed within 24 hours? Tiahrt did that and it's another thing that needs to change.
DeleteI'm talking about that ATF form that a gun buyer has to fill out at a licensed dealer. That form goes into a bound book, subject to inspection by said agency at any time.
DeleteLet's note that you didn't answer my main point. You fail to address that often. This gives me evidence that you have hidden motives.
Oh, you mean the physical paper form. The one that is not entered into any database and would have to be inspected by actually sending officers to the gun shop and hoping, of course, that the single sheet of paper can be found.
DeleteSure, that really ties you guys to the guns you buy.
It's a paper trail. In today's information age, that presents little difficulty in following.
DeleteMike gun shows do back round checks, before you spit out this shit, saying they don't go to one and buy one for your self. Then tell me they don't as for privet sales, there's no way it would work do you think a gang member would do a back round check before he sold his stolen gun to another gang member?
ReplyDeletePrivate sales without background checks are one of the main sources of guns flowing into the criminal world. These are done by law-abiding gun owners who unknowingly or not sell their lawfully owned property to prohibited persons. They would be affected by the law.
DeleteSales from criminal to criminal have nothing to do with it. The key is the point at which the gun is diverted from lawful ownership to criminal.
Bull shit Mike they don't get them from random people, the gun is still in the buyers name. Would you sell a gun under your name to some one you never met? They don't buy them legally. So no privet sales can stay the way they are, unless you'd sell a gun to some one you never met then you are part of the problem and are a real fool.
DeleteWhat do you mean "still in the buyer's name." I thought we didn't have licensing and registration yet?
DeleteThey don't but you do do some kind of paper work when you buy one and they FBI gets a call. As I said GO BUY ONE THEN TELL ME HOW EASY THEY ARE TO GET!! All that means is if I sell there's no paper trail from me to them and visa versa. So I can claim a gun is lost or stolen when really I have it.
DeleteMike criminals get there guns from the black market, which come from Mexico. Which come from China or Russia maybe even North Korea, country's who don't care who buys there guns so long as they are bought. Drug cartels with money buy them one's who are killed get there guns taken then sold. Other country's selling guns has even bin on the news not much mind you but it has. Plus you forget F&F where some FBI and ATF agents were found selling guns. Tell me how would checking me have stopped that?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that most criminals get their guns from the black market isn't useful. The question is where are the guns originally coming from. Many are moving into the black market through unregulated private sales. This should stop. Will it be 100% effective, no, but is that any reason to do nothing about it, no.
DeleteAnonymous told you. Do you imagine that China, Russia, or North Korea would be pleased to pass their records to our ATF? How about the Ukraine? Those countries cranked out the AK-47 by the ton. That's the gun your side professes to hate so much.
DeleteNo, I think it's the AR-15, made right here in the good ole US of A. And the Bushmaster, where's that come from again?
DeleteBan one, and others will take its place. Lots of manufacturers are making those these days.
DeleteMike you're a fool as I said they buy them from other places only 11% of guns are taken from here the rest are gotten from China and Russia. Here prove it wrong fool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCCof87pLKc
DeleteI don't think we're on the same page. You're talking about Fast and Furious and where the Mexican cartels get their guns. I'm talking about where US citizens get theirs.
DeleteA lot do get them from there. I'll admit not as much as the cartel do. But a lot if you look into it there are crooked officers who run guns. Not many but enough to make a good mark, like Katrina the crooked one's robbing people. Was not ALL but enough to make the news in a good size city with no power and no way to contact out side world.
DeleteHere's some proof. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpcmjSOvgro
ReplyDeleteWhat's that got to do with it?
DeleteHe even says so him self that they sold the guns to drug cartels, But I guess you mist THAT part.
DeleteHere's a Officer backing it as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC2C2lIwNSA
ReplyDeleteAnd this? Are you spamming my site again?
DeleteIf the truth is spam you know that thing you hide from, then yes.
Delete"Why would anyone who is honest and legitimate oppose this?" automatically casts the dissenter in the position of being dishonest and illegitimate. It's very similar to what some people who don't accept evolution in any form might ask: "How can an sincere, honest and informed person believe this?" Each one is designed to make the opposing side look bad. Demonization in another form.
ReplyDeleteYou're right and that's exactly what I meant. I admit it's a bit confrontational. How's "Why would anyone oppose this?" sound? I have said that so many times I can't count them.
DeletePeople oppose this because they don't want to be thrown in prison for selling their legally owned private property to non-prohibited buyer. The proposals out of the gun control camp make a new crime where there was none before- something that happens millions of times a year. Honest legitimate citizens don't want to go to prison, mike. I keep proposing ideas that give you your desired goals, but your side seems more interested in turning as many gun owners into criminals as you can.
ReplyDeleteHow convenient for you to disregard the individual responsibility and say new laws would make criminals out of law-abiding people. And, it's not even true. The new laws would require private sellers to insist on a background check before selling.
DeleteAnd it's a crime if they don't, right? Even when both parties are non-prohibited people?
Delete