More gun sales than ever are slipping through the federal background check system — 186,000 last year, a rate of 512 gun sales a day, as states fail to consistently provide thorough, real-time updates on criminal and mental histories to the FBI.
In the years since these background checks were required, about 71 percent have found no red flags and produced instant approvals.
But ten factors can disqualify gun purchasers: a felony conviction, an arrest warrant, a documented drug problem or mental illness, undocumented immigration status, a dishonorable military discharge, a renunciation of U.S. citizenship, a restraining order, a history of domestic violence, or an indictment for any crime punishable by longer than one year of prison time.
Any sign that one of these factors could be in a buyer's background produces a red-flag, which sends the check to the FBI researchers to approve, deny or investigate. They scour state records in the federal database, and often call local authorities for more information.
"It takes a lot of effort ... for an examiner to go out and look at court reports, look at judges' documents, try to find a final disposition so we can get back to a gun dealer on whether they can sell that gun or not," Del Greco said. "And we don't always get back to them."
This is in addition to the famous estimate of 40%, so how about we just add these default approvals to the approximate 40% in order to give it more validity?
This is in addition to the famous estimate of 40% . . .
ReplyDeleteHmm--"famous estimate"--a new way of saying "infamous lie"?
In other news, if today comports with the average, there will be 684,931 legitimate defensive uses of firearms today--one 365th of the estimated 2.5 million DGUs per year.
Oops--I mean 6,849. Sorry--caffeine deficiency.
DeleteStupid either way.
DeleteStupid either way.
DeleteYour "estimated" opinion, I presume.
"In roughly two percent of the checks handled by the FBI, agents don't get this information in time. If three business days pass without a federal response, buyers can legally get their guns, whether or not the check was completed."
ReplyDeleteFirst, some stores wont complete the purchase without an approval. Their company policy is that they wont sell based on the three day wait expiring. The article also doesn't mention that the FBI doesn't stop looking after three days,
"When a NICS transaction is delayed, the Brady Act allows the FFL to legally transfer the firearm if the NICS transaction is not resolved within three business days. However, the NICS Section continues to search for the information necessary to make a final determination until the transaction purges after 88 days."
And guess what they do if something turns up?
"Firearm Retrieval Referrals,
Because of the NICS Section’s commitment to public safety and national security, the search for needed disposition information continues beyond the three business days to provide a determination as stated in the Brady Act. In some instances, the information is subsequently obtained and a final status determined; however, if the final status (determined after the lapse of three business days) results in a deny decision and the NICS Section is advised by the FFL that the firearm was transferred, then the ATF is notified a prohibited person is in possession of a firearm. In 2013, the NICS Section referred 3,375 firearm retrieval actions to the ATF."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2013-operations-report
Then they come looking for the gun.
It's a little late AFTER the fact. Good luck trying to find the guy (gun) he's long gone. A stupid law that defeats itself.
Delete"Good luck trying to find the guy (gun) he's long gone."
DeleteWell, that comes to a little less than 2% of the total sales that go through after the three day wait. They seem to have done fairly well,
"The ATF retrieved the firearm in 97 percent of the cases in our sample that required a firearm retrieval."
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf
That leaves about 100 that aren't recovered. Unless the ATF has gotten less adept at their jobs since this report produced in 2004.
Oops, maybe I spoke too soon, after all, since then, someone there came up with Fast and Furious.
This report says 500 times a day. You're showing how it's not quite that high. Fine. The point still stands, right?
Delete"You're showing how it's not quite that high. Fine. The point still stands, right?"
DeleteIts interesting that you consider 9 per day as being not quite as high as 512 per day. The article implies that 512 people per day are "beating the system". Using numbers from the article, that comes to about nine hundredths of one percent. But if the articles author had done the research, he would have found that the more accurate number who "beat the system" is only 2% of the number.
Or maybe he did know. It doesn't sound quite as scary to say that 9 people per day "beat the system" and even when that happens, over 95% of those weapons are retrieved.
I wonder how many of those got away with a gun crime, or killing? You are obviously OK with 13,000 gun killings each year. I am not.
DeleteSarge, the author should have said "an estimated 512", then his journalistic integrity would remain intact.
Deletess, I didn't read it that way. I figured the 2% figure means 2% of ALL requests, which according to the report is about 500 a day. Does that make sense?
DeleteMike, 2% of total sales, which came to 21 million last year comes to 420,000.
Deletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
I believe that they are referring to the percentage of background checks that don't get an immediate approve. The ones that get a DELAY go to those 500 guys who then have three days to approve or deny.
So, the 186,000 is two percent of the NICS requests that get the initial DELAY response.
Something's not clear but obviously the authors of the article think there's a problem, and not one as insignificant as "9 people a day."
Delete"This is in addition to the famous estimate of 40%, so how about we just add these default approvals to the approximate 40% in order to give it more validity?"
ReplyDeleteHow about we repeal all back ground check laws to give the illusion we live in a free country more validity?
Hahaha
DeleteMost FFLs are crooked. And ATF doesn't have the manpower or budget to adequately regulate FFLs.
ReplyDeleteGunloons know this. That's why they get their panties in a twist every time a news organization runs an investigation on FFLs
Gee, why not advocate for a background check system that doesn't use FFLs then, like Colburn's DIY check proposal, instead of I-594 type of proposals that force transactions through crooked FFL dealers?
DeleteTS stop making sense it is not a fair argument when you do that
DeleteFor sure TS. Jade, we've discussed your assertion regarding FFLs and it boils down to just your opinion. And you're welcome to that.
DeleteTS made a good point. If all of these FFLs aren't to be trusted, then how can you justify requiring ALL gun sales being process through them? As opposed to one which doesn't?
My own opinion is that the same percentages that apply to gun owners at large apply to FFL dealers, i.e. 50% bad.
DeleteMy own opinion is that the same percentages that apply to gun owners at large apply to FFL dealers, i.e. 50% bad.
DeleteI eagerly await learning of the data compiled to support that assertion, and the analytical methodology used to reach that conveniently round figure of 50%. Or wait--would that be the same kind of data and analysis that produced the "50% of gun owners are unfit"--pure arbitrary, pulled-out-of-your-ass bullshit, in other words?
By the way, how do you reconcile your "50% 'bad'" with the Brady Campaign's numbers, claiming that 60% of problematical gun sales come from 1% of gun dealers (which would mean that the other 40% are divided up among 99% of the dealers), and that "nearly all" such sales are the work of 5% of gun dealers (meaning that 95% of gun dealers can be blamed for "nearly none" of them)? They even say that more than 80% of gun dealers sell no "crime guns."
So TS we are to just allow FFL's to be crooked?
DeleteThis 3 day limit is stupid. The gun should not be sold until the check is done. If that takes longer than 3 days, then it does. Stupid law that defeats itself.
Well Mike, according to the ATF, it’s more like 0.5%, once again showing that when you make one of your “common sense” estimations, we can expect it to be at least two orders of magnitude off.
DeleteThere were approximately 69,000 FFLs engaged in business in fiscal year 2012 (excluding persons holding collector licenses). During that time, ATF conducted more than 13,100 firearms compliance inspections. About 50 percent of the licensees inspected were determined to be in full compliance with the law and regulations and no violations were cited. Approximately 67 federal firearms licenses were revoked or were denied renewal due to willful violations of the GCA. This figure is approximately 0.5 percent of the number of licensees inspected.
https://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html
Coburn's proposal does nothing to stop crooked gun shops and gun sellers to give access to criminals. Of course, it also does nothing to stop straw purchases.
DeleteThe answer, of course, is to put the onus on manufacturers and sellers. If there were some kind of penalty (jail, fine, loss of business, etc.) for selling guns to prohibited purposes--you'd see an immediate and dramatic reduction in gun crime.
Jade: "Coburn's proposal does nothing to stop crooked gun shops and gun sellers to give access to criminals. Of course, it also does nothing to stop straw purchases."
DeleteAnd the Manchin-Toomey, Schumer, I594 bills also do nothing then.
Jade: " If there were some kind of penalty (jail, fine, loss of business, etc.) for selling guns to prohibited purposes--you'd see an immediate and dramatic reduction in gun crime."
Oh, you mean like the link I posted right above yours? If only there were a federal agency in charge with auditing dealers who has the power to revoke licensed and file federal charges? If only...
Mike if you believe 50% of FFL's are bad they why do you advocate for them to be the ones to be in charge of performing background checks? Would it not be better to have a system not involving FFL's running background checks on guns they have not sold? If all you really want is for a background check to be done then does it really matter who makes the call..I mean giving the public access to the system for which they provide the funding and better yet setting up an App which people could use. I don't agree with forced background checks but if it is going to be forced upon the people then it should be as simple and easy as possible to complete and free from further taxation other than the tax money that is extorted from us already
Delete"pure arbitrary, pulled-out-of-your-ass bullshit"
DeleteKurt, you can keep saying that, if you like, but we all know what a liar you are. In my 50% posts I provided links to each of the disqualifying categories and based the whole thing on the idea that gun owners are normal regular folks who suffer from the same problems as everyone else. How you can dispute that is really quite amazing.
. . . we all know what a liar you are.
DeleteWho is "we all"--the world's three stupidest rodents?
And about your carefully researched, scientifically analyzed "50%" figure. You know the one I mean--the one that is quintuple the previous figure--also carefully thought out, no doubt? That figure, in turn, replaced the (also carefully thought out, I'm sure) 30% figure, which you then quickly admitted was "wildly exaggerated."
But the one that is one and two thirds as great as the "wildly exaggerated" figure is the truly carefully arrived at one, right?
And that, of course, is without even getting into the exact same conveniently round figure your arrived at for dirty FFLs.
Gun owners suffer from the same ills as everybody else. I provided links to show what those ills are. That's not ""pure arbitrary, pulled-out-of-your-ass bullshit"" It's just something you don't like.
DeleteI see you have chosen not to address the wildly oscillating nature of your carefully researched and thought out figures. Probably a good idea on your part.
DeleteGun owners suffer from the same ills as everybody else.
DeleteAt the same rate as the general population? Bullshit.
You cite a figure (although without a link, apparently) of 30% of Americans as alcohol abusers, and claim that this "translates straight across the board to gun owners." Wrong. Alcohol abuse will be disproportionately concentrated among people who have committed offenses that make them "prohibited persons," and thus cannot be lawful gun owners.
Same with illicit drugs. Same with mental illness. Same with nearly all your categories.
And let's get back to this "50% of gun dealers are bad" claim, and how to reconcile that with the Brady Campaign's numbers. Brady Bunch says that more than 80% of gun dealers have sold no "crime guns," while you claim that 50% of gun dealers are dirty.
DeleteNow let's say for the sake of argument that all the "good" gun dealers (half of the total number of dealers) are among that 80% (I'm rounding it down to 80%, which favors you, but I can afford to be generous here) of no "crime guns" dealers. That's a ridiculous assumption, because it ignores the obvious fact that many "crime guns" are going to be sold without any malfeasance on the part of the dealer--but again, the ridiculous assumption favors you, and I can afford to be generous. That still means that 30% of all gun dealers are both "bad," and have sold no "crime guns." 60% of your "bad" gun dealers have never sold a "crime gun."
That makes sense to you?
And Mike, how do you reconcile your 50% number with the ATF's number which is 1/100th of yours? They inspect a full 20% of all the dealers a year, and only revoked 67 licenses in 2012. Are 50% of ATF agents crooked too? Is it that ATF agents suffer from the same ills as everybody else?
DeleteJeez, Kurt, three comments in a row. Can I get a word in here?
Delete"Same with illicit drugs. Same with mental illness. Same with nearly all your categories." That's way I downplayed each category. It wasn't "straight across the board to gun owners." Keep lying.
TS, for one thing, I have a higher standard than the ATF. Do I have to remind you that I consider a dropped gun a major no-no?
It wasn't "straight across the board to gun owners." Keep lying.
DeleteUm--Mikeb? I quoted you directly, word for word:
Alcohol abuse is difficult to define, but let's take a study that found that 30% of Americans abuse alcohol. That translates straight across the board to gun owners.
So who is lying here, again?
That's [why] I downplayed each category.
Hmm--I don't see any mention of "downplay[ing]" in the original post, much less any explanation of the methodology used to determine the amount by which to "downplay" each factor. That's the kinda thing that leads honest observers inescapably to the conclusion that your numbers are "pure arbitrary, pulled-out-of-your-ass bullshit."
I just realized, though, that there's a factor I hadn't considered. In arriving at your "50% figure," you say, "Let's round it down to a nice even 50%." Rounding down implies "approximately," or "estimated," and we now know that adding either of those qualifications to a stat allows you to (nearly) triple a figure that might arguably have at least some rational, fact-supported basis--so you might be talking about "only" 17% of lawful gun owners.
Still ridiculous, but only a third as egregious.
Mike, Jade just said that over 50% of FFLs are "crooked", and that's what spawned this thread. Obviously dropping a gun doesn't make one crooked. So would you say that vs gross exaggeration by two orders of magnitude?
DeleteKurt, do I have to post The Famous 50% again and and put certain parts in bold for you?
Delete"Let's round it down to a nice even 50%. " Straight across the board would have been 61%. Or, do you require more details about the "rounding down."
Wow--72 hours to come up with a response, and this is the best you could manage, huh? Not looking good.
DeleteOr, do you require more details about the "rounding down."
What do you mean by "more details"--I haven't seen the first detail of the statistical basis for determining the amount by which to "downplay" the total (and by the way, you originally said you had "downplayed each category"--strongly suggesting a far more precise, considered approach than simply adding all the factors up, and then by some unexplained mechanism, rounding the total down by some arbitrary amount).
And of course you've still yet to address how I "lied" in saying "[the alcoholism rate] translates straight across the board to gun owners"--directly quoting you. How could that be the truth when you say it, but a "lie" when I quoted you?
You're the liar here, Mikeb, and worse than that, you're insulting, by virtue of trying to get by with such obvious lies that you clearly must think everyone reading them is utterly idiotic.
Kurt, if the post had been called The Famous 61%, then it would have been "straight across the board." Calling 61% to 50% "straight across the board" is lying.
DeleteTS ducks another question. Typical for the gun loons on this site.
Delete