Fox News
Republicans are criticizing Colorado Bureau of Investigations data that tracks the number of background checks done on private gun sales since a new law expanded the number of reviews required.
Republicans are criticizing Colorado Bureau of Investigations data that tracks the number of background checks done on private gun sales since a new law expanded the number of reviews required.
The GOP failed last month in an effort to repeal the law that added online and private-seller transactions to a list of mandated checks.
During debate on the repeal attempt, CBI Director Ron Sloan said 6,200 checks were done on “private transfers that were covered under HB1229.”
Democrats sized on that figure in rejecting the repeal attempt, saying it showed that the law was working. Republicans, however, said the number was misleading.
According to CBI data released late Friday, 2,361 of the 6,199 private background checks done in the first six months of the law going into effect were conducted at gun shows. Background checks at gun shows have long been required under state law.
Republican Senate Leader Bill Cadman said Monday that he was “extremely concerned that such misleading information would be provided as factually based testimony by the senior law enforcement professional in Colorado.”
This is sort-of the opposite of Missouri. I wonder if the violent crime rate will go down in Colorado and perhaps someone will suggest it's due to the stricter laws.As far as the nit-picking complaint that not all of the 6,000 private sale background checks were done outside of gun shows, big deal. Maybe they tried to pull a fast one, it would have been pretty stupid since it was so obvious, but the point remains. There were still about 4,000 private sale background checks done in the first six months of the new law. That sounds like a winner to me.
And how many sales were done without a background check? Oh, that's right, you don't know. And that's the point. Sales go on, and the people we need to worry about aren't the ones being checked.
ReplyDeleteAnd the point is that we need to document the fact that a sale was legal. Only then will we stop you criminal gunsucks from selling guns to felons and making millions of dollars. There is a huge industry in arming criminals, and this is why the NRA exists - to protect that industry. No one has the right to buy a gun without a background check. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to "keep and bear" not the right to buy them without a background check.
DeleteCitations from reputable and impartial sources please.
DeleteI have no interest whatsoever in arming violent criminals who prey on good people. I am armed in case I ever have to defend myself from a criminal. Why would I go about helping them to overcome me? Your assertions make no sense.
-- TruthBeTold
Well, they make sense if you look at it this way. By, resisting universal background checks, you are allowing criminal to have easier access to guns than they otherwise would. That's what's meant my arming criminals.
DeleteThat logic is specious. And, that's not what POed Lib was saying in the first place, Mike. He's just continuing to slander Greg and other gun owners any way he can.
DeleteNo, Mikeb, even if there were a universal requirement to run background checks, criminals wouldn't comply. Well, some might in the opposite sense from what you mean. They would only sell to those they know to be criminals. But the fact that I don't go along with your magical thinking does not make me responsible for arming criminals.
DeleteIf those background checks entirely prevented even a single violent criminal from obtaining a firearm from all sources (including illegal street sales) and entirely prevented a violent criminal from attacking someone with an alternate weapon, I would call that a win as well.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that a voluntary background check is NOT going to prevent a violent criminal from illegally purchasing a firearm on the streets ... or from using a knife, hammer, pipe, etc. to violently assault someone.
Now, if there were no down side to background checks, I would still tend to support them. However, there are three down sides to background checks:
(1) They cost money and provide no measurable reduction in violent crime.
(2) They take time (often weeks to complete) and provide no measurable reduction in violent crime.
(3) Government can misuse background checks (through ignorance, apathy, and/or malice) to unjustifiably prevent good people from purchasing firearms.
Given that there is no logical reduction in violent crime, no measurable reduction in violent crime, and that government can misuse and even abuse good people to prevent them from purchasing legal products, I do not support background checks.
-- TruthBeTold
It's really convenient for you guys to insist there is no benefit to background check laws, but a tiny bit of honest assessment would tell you otherwise. Private sales without background checks is one of the major ways guns flow from the good guys to the bad guys. Universal background checks would eliminate that. Would it stop ALL criminals from getting guns? No, of course not. Would it stop SOME? Yes, obviously. Would that lessen crime and save lives? Yes, absolutely. An honest and unbiased person would not need "measurable" results or evidence to see that.
Deletewhat proof do you have about illegal sales? None. Read your words Mike, an honest person needs no evidence or results to go fall in line? Evidence and result are what proves laws and procedures work. If you think blindly following and idea that offers no measurable results or evidence that it works defines an honest person, it truly explains much of the non sense I have heard from you.
DeleteMikeZ
Mikeb, why must you talk nonsense? Do you seriously believe that no sales would happen without a check if that were the requirement? In fact, given the evidence of Prohibition and the War on Drugs, it's safe to say that plenty of sales would go on without checks just to get away with doing it.
DeleteBut as MikeZ said, there's nothing dishonest about requiring evidence to accept a conclusion. Requiring evidence is being logical.
Mike B wrote, "Would it [universal background checks] stop SOME [bad guys from acquiring firearms]? Yes ..."
DeleteWrong. Everyone that I know buys whatever they want. If a friend really wants to purchase a loaf of bread, they go to their favorite store. If the store is out, they go to another, and another, and another, and so on until they find their loaf of bread. And if none of the stores have a loaf of bread, then the friend buys a loaf of bread from a restaurant or purchases the ingredients and makes the loaf all by themselves.
At the absolute best, universal background checks would only prevent "honest" good guys from selling firearms to bad guys. But universal background checks do absolutely nothing to stop bad guys from acquiring firearms from other sources ... even including from "dishonest" good guys.
Remember, in terms of universal background checks, a "good guy" is simply someone without any criminal convictions that preclude them from purchasing firearms from Federal Firearm Licensees. Those "good guys" could be hardened criminals that have simply never been caught/prosecuted.
-- TruthBeTold
Greg, you're being tricky again.
Delete"Do you seriously believe that no sales would happen without a check if that were the requirement? "
When did I ever say that ANY gun control law would be 100% effective?
Truth be Told, your "loaf of bread" story would work if every criminal who wanted a gun was absolutely determined to go to any length to get one. But the obvious fact is they're not all that determined. Some are hardly determined at all. This is the same false argument you guys give about suicide. It's weak.
DeleteMikeB, the problem with your logic is that you assume that banning the tool will stop the job. Its the same as saying banning nail guns will stop houses from being built. Its a flawed logic. All that can be verified is that it stops a job using that particular method. Your arguments only strength relies on the same justification as much of the expansion of surveillance in the US. The convenience of saying you prevented something is that you don't need any proof that it was going to happen in the first place. The problem is you use this logic to support your argument but ignore it when its convenient for you. You deny that it works when allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms prevents crime, IE DGU's but use it to support your argument.
DeleteMikeZ
Mike, surely you've seen my list of what I consider proper gun control laws. That's a bit more than "banning the tool," don't you think? Furthermore, the one-strike-you're-out policy which would disarm many unfit gun owners would have a cumulative effect through the years. These are my proposals, not simply "banning the tool."
DeleteWhat you seem to be falling back on in the comment is what I already addressed. Not all criminals or unfit gun owners are determined enough to go get the hammer to bash someone's brains out. Much gun violence is not pre-meditated and planned meticulously. The people committing these crimes are clowns and losers who, thanks to the lax gun laws you support, are easily armed with guns.