Wednesday, September 25, 2013

On Armslist, The Craigslist For Guns, 1 in 30 Buyers Already Has A Criminal Record

Forget the so-called "gun-show loophole. To buy a gun without a background check, all you have to do is go online, where websites connect gun buyers and sellers in “private sales” exempt from scrutiny.
Gun control advocates have previously speculated that these kinds of markets are ripe for exploitation, but a new investigation from Mayors Against Illegal Guns provides the best evidence yet. Out of a sample of prospective buyers on Armslist.com, “the ‘Craigslist’ for guns,” one in 30 had a criminal record that would have prohibited them from buying a gun if they hadn't been exempt from the background check.
The report argues this narrow slice is actually a conservative estimate. It considered only criminal records in the buyer's jurisdiction and didn’t check other factors that can make purchasing a gun illegal, like serious mental illness or drug abuse. It also seems intuitively more likely that someone seeking to flout the law would remain anonymous or use the contact information of a friend. The fact that so many would choose instead to post identifying information online is what Bloomberg said most surprised him.
“They just must feel that there’s no enforcement, and there’s not going to be any enforcement,” he said. “And it’s a sad commentary.”

Conservative estimate is right.  The true number is probably 15 out of 30.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. "Out of a sample of prospective buyers on Armslist.com, “the ‘Craigslist’ for guns,” one in 30 had a criminal record that would have prohibited them from buying a gun if they hadn't been exempt from the background check."

    Hmmm, one in thirty. Wouldn't that mean if they were prohibited, that posting the ad would be considered conspiracy or something? Sort of sounds like an easy arrest. You show up to sell to him and help the guy into the nice police car.
    Though I do recall in the past you saying that felons attempting to purchase shouldn't be arrested if the NICS system catches it and prevents the sale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think I said they SHOULDN'T be arrested. I said it's no big deal if they're not. An arrest for the paper crime of lying on a government form is nothing compared to the great good of having prevented the sale.

      Delete
  2. Love how you take a 1 in 30 chance and turn it into a 1 in 2 chance based on nothing but your own opinion.

    That's extremely scientific and very conducive to debate! When can we expect to be called liars if we dispute your obviously proven statement that half of the people on Armslist are prohibited persons?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So were those mayor felons trying to buy guns for themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This issue could be easily fixed if certain members of the gun control lobby were willing to compromise. The percentage of guns being sold without backgrounds could be reduced from its mythical forty percent down to ten to twenty percent by just allowing citizen access to NICS to run background checks on these private transactions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not going to happen because the gun controllers want just that...control. They won't have that if the general public is allowed to do something for themselves and save tax dollars.

      Delete
    2. This is one of your false arguments. Because WE won't allow access to the NICS we can't have easy background checks. It's all our fault. We're too controlling.

      The truth is, YOU won't allow universal background checks., period. That's why every crime committed with a gun which entered the criminal world through a background check-less transaction, is on you.

      Delete
    3. Mikeb, I have proposed a background check system, but you didn't like it because it didn't include your favorite wishes about registration and licensing. If you won't compromise, you can't blame us.

      Delete
    4. Colburn even introduced it as a bill. Ried never brought it up for a vote. How do you justify that, Mike?

      Delete