Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Chris W. Cox Lies and Twists His Way into a Bizarre Reality

Gun control advocates, such as Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, frequently use discredited and false information to push their gun control schemes. Here are the facts.
Berceau’s claim, pushed also by the Brady Campaign, that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has stopped more than 2 million would-be gun purchases sure sounds impressive — only it isn’t true.
The fact is the vast majority of the 2.1 million people flagged by NICS are either legitimate purchasers (who are snagged by mistake) or criminals who are then turned loose to obtain firearms elsewhere, rather than being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
For example, in 2010, only 62 out of 72,659 NICS denials led to prosecutions by the federal government — and only 13 of those prosecutions resulted in a conviction. That’s 0.0001 percent.

First they drop the unsubstantiated claim that part of the "vast majority" of those blocked are really legitimate purchasers who are flagged by mistake. Then they focus on the fact that the criminals who are blocked are not arrested and prosecuted for lying on the form.

This is extremely misleading. The background check has done its job by preventing the purchase. To blame the background check system for the fact that criminals have so many other options to buy guns is wrong.  In fact, it's doubly wrong since the number one option criminals have is to buy a gun privately without a background check.  So, the genius argument of the NRA is to blame the Brady Background check system for the fact that it's not universally required, something gun control folks have been fighting for and the NRA has been resisting.

The most recent Department of Justice survey of 1,402 convicted criminals found that nearly 90 percent of them got their guns from sources including theft, straw purchases, family, friends and the black market. None of these would have been blocked by NICS.
If Rep. Berceau truly wants to keep guns out of the wrong hands, she would challenge Biden and the Obama administration on their admitted refusal to prosecute those they know may be attempting to purchase a firearm illegally. Instead, she’s calling for a so-called “universal background checks” scheme, which has more to do with registering and criminalizing lawful transfers than reducing violent crime.
This is the kind of circular logic that boggles the mind. The first paragraph offers a sort-of tautology. As convicted criminals, the only way they CANNOT get guns is from licensed dealers who require a background check, hence the list of possible ways, "theft, straw purchases, family, friends and the black market."

The next paragraph contains the mind-blower. Prosecuting people for lying on a government form would not prevent them from attempting to procure guns through "theft, straw purchases, family, friends and the black market."

And the conclusion:

The goal of anti-gun is to harass law-abiding gun owners and manufacture public shame toward anyone who exercises their Second Amendment rights. They can try by hook or by crook, but the National Rifle Association won’t them get away with it.

Yes, the poor persecuted gun owners are being shamed and harassed.  But, not to worry, the NRA is there to protect them from this terrible abuse.


  1. If your side wanted to prevent criminals from getting guns, Senator Coburn's proposal would have worked. But that's not what is important to the gun control freak. What matters to your side is having a list of who has what gun.

    1. That and adding criminal burdens around gun ownership. People may think twice about owning a gun knowing they have to walk a tightrope over a felony pit.

    2. Yeah, the poor persecuted gun owners. Boo Hoo. You guys are so put upon that Chris Cox has to lie and twist things.

    3. Mikeb, when it's a right you care about, you don't whine like that. Poor persecuted pregnant women wanting to end their pregnancies, poor persecuted voters having to show an ID, poor persecuted gay couples wanting to marry, poor persecuted southern blacks wanting to drink from the same water fountain--see what happens when you're smug about rights?

    4. Yes. If you try to throw me in prison I'm going to whine about it. I'm being a baby because I don't think I should be incarcerated when I've done nothing wrong.

    5. Whaaaaa, whaaaa, whaaaa. You poor victims. The evil laws would be responsible for sending you to the slammer. How can you bear it, even the thought of it?

  2. "First they drop the unsubstantiated claim that part of the "vast majority" of those blocked are really legitimate purchasers who are flagged by mistake."

    By the same token then, claims by gun control advocates using numbers of blocked sales to show the effectiveness are also an unsubstantiated claim. If no one goes back to check, then neither side can make a claim of either effectiveness or the opposite. The only sales that can really be documented as preventing a prohibited person is one where the prohibited person is convicted.
    This isn't too unlike the debate over defensive gun uses. Both sides making claims, but little documented evidence.

    1. In this case, however, we have a leading gun nut making the unsubstantiated claim. Right? The "oh, but, they do it too" defense is pretty weak when you should be simply agreeing that what Chris Cox said is wrong.

    2. Mike, I believe I said that both sides make unsubstantiated claims. For example, when someone makes this type of claim,

      “Make no mistake: Countless lives have been saved, and crimes have been prevented thanks to the Brady law,” Brady President Dan Gross wrote."

      They are literally correct because there is no way to count how many crimes were prevented, because no one is counting the true number. Claiming that the law is not only successful, but needs to be expanded simply on the number of sales denied is very sloppy.
      You frequently call gun advocates to task claiming that the number of defensive gun uses is much smaller than the number of people who are hurt or killed by misuse of firearms. And, just as with background checks, there is very little documentation. So how is it ok for one, and not the other?
      If gun control advocates are willing to attempt to take the moral high ground by illustrating that the claims of one side cant be proven, they cant very well complain if they are knocked off that high ground because they use the same techniques.

    3. That's a good point, ss. But, I think you're forgetting that although I disparage the methods for estimating DGUs, I've shown that the misuse of guns, the documented misuse, is higher than most DGU estimates.

      The amount of blocked gun sales that actuallyprevent crime, I agree is uncountable. Dan Gross is being a little slick when he calls it "countless." But, since we're talking in the millions, even a very conservative estimate of the number of cases in which crime was prevented would be something. And it begs for expansion since many of the rejected disqualified would-be buyers go right to a private sale. If this weren't available, or even if it weren't AS available, much more crime would be prevented.

  3. "First they drop the unsubstantiated claim that part of the "vast majority" of those blocked are really legitimate purchasers who are flagged by mistake."

    ACTUALLY the original said that the vast majority are these flagged by mistake people or actual criminals who are not prosecuted. If you want to complain about the order of that list, by all means, nitpick away. But what you said in your commentary was a complete fabrication and twisting of what Cox said.

    Why must you misrepresent what he said like that?

    1. What the fuck are you talking about? I quoted what he said.

      "The fact is the vast majority of the 2.1 million people flagged by NICS are either legitimate purchasers (who are snagged by mistake) or criminals..."

      It's grossly misleading. And whatever percentage of the 2.1 million who were actual criminals were prevented from buying a gun from the FFL guy who conducted the background check, indicating that the system works.

      The lying Cox went on to say that since they weren't charged with lying on the government form somehow the whole thing was a failure. That's bullshit. You guys are so desperate to prevent the background check system from being expanded that you'll do or say anything, you'll pretend all kinds of nonsense make sense.