PokitiFact has changed its rating of this claim from "Mostly True" to "Half True."
Yet, in their description it still seems mostly true to me. Others agree.
"It’s a fairly stable market. That is to say, gun stores have had their
part, police supply stores have had their part, and then there are the
gun shows and private dealings about which we know very little," said
Robert McCrie, of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "To be sure,
there has been this bump up in gun purchases, which we know from
reports from gun stores and the companies like Smith & Wesson.
There’s the knowledge that the market has been more vigorous and
probably that higher vigor has been reflected in gun shows and private
sales in tandem."
His take: "The 40 percent seems about right."
and
Jay Corzine has attended and studies gun shows in Florida. The
University of Central Florida professor says that based on his
observation, no more than 15 to 20 percent of sales at gun shows happen
without a background check. But when you add in other private sales --
neighbors selling to neighbors, ads in the paper, etc. -- the 40 percent
figure is "probably accurate" and "a very good figure to use."
It seems to me that PolitiFact is demanding proof where none exists and based on that lack of proof is downgrading the claim.
One thing is clear in all the quotes in the article and all the references to the 40%, and that's the fact that everybody seems to understand that the 40% refers to ALL private sales, not those limited to gun shows. Only the agenda-driven liars among the gun-rights extremists have a problem with this.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, Politifact needs to demand proof if nothing more to insure that their reputation. Otherwise they would need to change their name to PolitiMaybe. Also, all of these "facts" are based on what a number of people tell a researcher something on the phone. For example, in the paper that the 40% number originates, one respondent claims to have used a gun defensively over 50 times in the last year. But researchers use some sort of beer math to minimize that.
The challenge is that one side of this debate believes that all firearms transfers should be preceded by at least an NICS background check and has often claimed that 80 to 90 percent of the populace wants it.
The people on the other side of the debate has concerns that this background check program has the potential for defacto or future registration of firearms to facilitate future confiscation of firearms. There is also an issue of requiring individuals to keep paper records of these private transfers.
One way to help satisfy both sides to at least some degree would be to allow private individuals to run NICS checks for their private transfers. Currently most of these checks are run by FFLs online. To address the concerns of those who believe that it could be used to track firearms, all information about the firearm being transfered would be removed from the check. Make, model, serial #, is not really needed because if the person getting the gun is prohibited from possessing one, it doesnt really matter what gun he's trying to buy. If the 80 to 90 percent number the gun control side claims is correct, this would result in an immediate drop in the number of illegal transfers.
Oh no! You and your side keep calling the 40% number an established fact, and yet they're demanding proof?!? How DARE they! And how dare we have a problem with taking your word on it, even when you admit that there's no proof of the number!
ReplyDeleteYour comments above basically gave away the farm. You admitted you're tossing a number around based on blind faith and the fact that it seemed right to you, but that NO proof for it exists. And then you claimed that nobody should oppose this number unless they're blinded by fanaticism.
So much logical fail there, I don't know where to begin.
The Washington Post fact checkers have repeatedly eviscerated this "40%" lie, and are now giving Obama "Three Pinocchios" (only one fewer than the maximum possible).
ReplyDeleteI guess the herbivore is calling WaPo "agenda driven liars among the gun-rights extremists," perhaps out of a kind wish to keep my amused.
Demanding proof is critical thinking--you know, what Dog Gone yammers about all the time. When someone makes a claim of fact, it's appropriate to see the evidence. You, Mikeb, take far too much on faith.
ReplyDelete