Previously released statistics related to the newly regulated private sales of guns in Colorado — figures which became a flashpoint in recent legislative debates — don't tell the full story.
The actual number of private gun purchases submitted to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation is much lower, a Denver Post analysis finds.
While the Colorado Bureau of Investigation reported in January that 6,198 private-sale checks were conducted from July 2013 — when the law went into effect — through December, the actual number is almost half that.
That's because, under the "private checks" category, the CBI lumped in the newly regulated private sales with sales conducted at gun shows, which the bureau has tracked since 2001.
The Post asked the CBI to separate out the new sales and found that for the six-month period, there were only 3,838 background checks. Forty of those resulted in denials, or a rate of 1.04 percent, according to The Post's findings.
During those same six months, CBI processed 2,361 background checks from gun shows, also netting 40 denials, according to The Post's findings.
First of all, I have to say, with this new law, private sales have not been banned, as one of our commenters continually says.
Secondly, regardless of the percentage, the 40 people denied a gun sale make the whole thing worthwhile.
Thirdly, this story is all about convenience vs. inconvenience. A few thousand lawful gun owners had to go through the inconvenience of doing a background check in order to prevent 40 known unfit people from obtaining a gun. Only the most fanatical extremist self-centered maniacs would complain about that.
If you can't do a sale privately, then private sales are banned. Having to involve a licensed third party in the transaction is not private. But you knew that's what we meant- you're just doing that tedious arguing thing.
ReplyDeleteOf course there is no reason why an FFL has to be involved. They don't do the check either- instead they call a fourth party (the FBI) who does it.
There weren't only 4000 sales of this kind in this time. By not doing it the right way, you left thousands and thousands of (now illegal) sales go unchecked, and probably hundreds of denials. Only the most extremist self-centered maniac would make it a crime to sell a gun to a non-prohibited person, and not allow people the tools to find out that status when it's so easy to do so AND would result in more background checks.
Involving a third party does not stop the transaction from being private. You made that shit up. What stops something from being a private sale is when the seller is an FFL dealer. That's all.
DeleteInvolving a third party does not stop the transaction from being private. You made that shit up. What stops something from being a private sale is when the seller is an FFL dealer. That's all.
DeleteHoly shit, you really are redefining the word "private." I'd like to say "unbelievable," but sadly, it's not, in your case.
Mike BNovember 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM
DeleteOh, it's our fault? Why, because we want to end private sales? That doesn't even make sense. We DO want to end private sales. That's the whole point. And it's your side that won't have it, even though you know it's one of the main ways bad guys get guns.
Greg CampNovember 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Mikeb, we know nothing of the kind. What we do know is that you want guns removed from society. This new technology is an example of how that's impossible.
TSNovember 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM
The truth comes out. So it's not that a background check isn't happening- you don't want us to be able to sell a gun privately even with a check. How come you told us that you don't care how it gets done in the past?
Mike BNovember 11, 2013 at 7:07 PM
Selling a gun with a check, makes it no longer a private sale. Get it?
And what's the difference if the law states ONLY an FFL is allowed to sell a gun? So someone who wants to sell must first sell to an FFL and they in turn sell the gun and take their cut that way. There is no difference, and in fact in states with a waiting period, the FFL takes possession during that period. The same terminology I am using applies to other fields, like real estate. If you sell your house without an agent, that's called a "private sale".
DeleteBut you are playing a semantic game. What do you want to call the type of sale which is now banned. Because that thing which used to be legal and common, is now against the law.
And as I explained dozens of times, if you make something needlessly expensive and difficult, people are less likely to do it, as witnessed by the extremely low compliance rate. Don't say I didn't warn you. You've stated that you didn't care which way it was done. Do you care now that we can see the low compliance?
Involving a third party doesn't stop the transaction from being private? You get invovled in a lot of threesomes, Mikeb?
DeleteInvolving a third party doesn't stop the transaction from being private? You get invovled in a lot of threesomes, Mikeb?
DeleteThat's awesome.
Selling a gun with a check, makes it no longer a private sale. Get it?
DeleteJFleck found an even more obvious example than I did, Mikeb, of your having argued that background checks and "privacy" are mutually exclusive.
Get it?
Very nice find, JFleck--thanks.
Those quotes were in the context of "private sale loophole." To me, the way they talk about it in Colorado makes sense: "private gun purchases submitted to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation." A private sale is between two individuals, the seller of which is not an FFL dealer. That's true in Colorado where they're required to bring the CBI into it as it is true in Arizona where anything goes.
DeleteBut, really what the hell's the difference? Are you guys so determined to find contradictions in what I say on this blog that you don't care about the issue at hand? The issue is requiring background checks on private sales. Who cares if that makes them no longer private sales or if they're really private sales with background checks? Only you contentions gun nuts care about petty shit like that.
The issue here is that I (and many others) have showed you the right way to do it, vs. the wrong way. As predicted, the wrong way has incredibly low compliance, even with the threat of the stick as your motivational idea. You've said in the past that you don't care which way it gets done. Do you care now that we can see the failures in doing it the gun control way vs. a way that respects rights?
DeleteThe right way and the wrong way? Are you kidding? Do you really think the scofflaws would willingly take advantage of the DIY right way, as you call it? I don't? Those guys would resist that in almost the same numbers as they resist the "wrong way." They'd be offended that the government told them they have to, and they'd claim that it was all a conspiracy to gather their private information for a secret database.
DeleteDon't you agree?
The system wouldn't track transaction information. The only thing that could be tracked is that someone checked their status- it wouldn't say whether or not they bought a gun or how many, or whom they bought it from. This would alleviate a lot of the record keeping concerns. Not everyone's, but they are not the one who would go to an FFL just because you told them to, so what do you lose? Don't you believe the poll from your camp that most gun owners support private background checks?
DeleteMike, you've said in the past you don't care which way it is done, but I'm not seeing that. You obviously have a strong preference.
Pretty funny that you say they'd worry about DIY being a conspiracy to gather a secret database--especially considering that you have opposed DIY on the grounds that it doesn't create a database.
DeleteIn other words--Oh no! They're so paranoid they'd think we're trying to make a database; instead, we need to do MY system so that we CAN create a database!
DeleteWhen a background check is done, regardless of whether it's done by an FFL guy or by this futuristic DIY method, sufficient information must be entered into the system to make the determination. Do you really think those objecting to the laws about universal background checks would suddenly be cool with basically the same damn thing as long as they could enter the information themselves?
DeleteIf it is a background check you want, then the information is on the person. There doesn't need to be any information on the gun(s) being bought.
DeleteAnd how many sales went on without anyone asking permission? I hope millions. You've been shown an acceptable background check system, and you rejected that. This being the case, I say you had your chance to compromise, and you failed. No deals.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Obama administration, there are 10 million private transactions a year. If we call Colorado average, their share is 167,000 per year based on population. So this is less than 4% compliance rate.
DeleteTell me Mike, would you rather have 6,000 sales that were checked and recorded, or 100,000 sales that were checked but not recorded because it's a DIY system? You keep taking about "inconvenience", but when the result is non-compliance maybe my idea of making it cheap and easy (and alleviate record keeping concerns) is the better way to do it.
I see this count was only from July, so compliance is better than 4%, but still somewhere well south of 10%.
DeleteThere goes GC and the gun loons again promoting breaking the law and criminal activity. Typical for non law abiding citizens (criminals).
DeleteFirst of all, I have to say, with this new law, private sales have not been banned, as one of our commenters continually says.
ReplyDeleteOh? How do you define the word "private," then? Here's a hint: if you think having the FBI dig through your history is "private," you're more than a little off.
Besides, when you said, "We DO want to end private sales. That's the whole point," what did you mean?
Am I wrong to have interpreted that as meaning you want to end sales without background checks, and that you were defining private sales as those sales that proceed without such a check?
Secondly, regardless of the percentage, the 40 people denied a gun sale make the whole thing worthwhile.
To foaming-at-the-mouth anti-rights fanatics.
Wow, now that's a gotcha. How long did it take you to find that one?
DeleteWhat I meant in that thread was "do away with the private sale loophole." But by taking my hurried comment out of context it could appear that I was contradicting myself, but sorry, I wasn't. If you look at the up-thread comments you'll see the discussion was about the "private sale loophole."
How long did it take you to find that one?
DeleteI didn't time it, but my estimate is maybe fourteen seconds or so.
What I meant in that thread was "do away with the private sale loophole."
But what is "the private sales loophole" but a gun sale made without a background check--the thing that makes a sale no longer private?
Well, at least you're not calling it the gun show loophole. But why won't you admit that yes, you do want to ban private sales?
DeleteThere's no conspiracy here, Greg. No one whats to ban private sales. We just want them to be done with background checks. I don't think it's the same thing.
DeleteAnd how do you juxtapose the line about how "90% of Americans/78% of gun owners want 'universal background checks'" with the fact that less than 10% of Coloradans are doing it?
ReplyDeleteYou were just guessing about how many private sales have been done without background checks, but couldn't those people belong to the small percentage who do not favor background checks? Or, couldn't some of them have given lip service to the idea of background checks when polled but when it was time to sell or buy a gun they said fuck it?
DeleteIt wasn't my guess, it was from the Obama administration. But surely you don't think of the millions of guns in Colorado that only a few thousand have changed hands.
DeleteAnd I love how you guys have been touting this 90% polling stuf, but apparently most of them are like "fuck it" when it comes to giving a crap about gun control.
DeleteSeems the gun loon "side" is loosing quite a few decisions lately. SMILE
ReplyDeleteAnd of course the Obama regime has extremely accurate facts and figures. I mean it's true! Just look at healthcare numbers!
ReplyDelete