Universal Background Checks? Yes or No? Ideas?

[RamRoddoc]

1%...... No crap? It is worse than I suspected. First off they are selling "universal background checks" on public safety.

That is a lie and when in failure to accomplish it will only lead to more restrictive gun laws in order to double down on failure. The claim is "40% of all gun transfers don't go through NCIS checks". I heard it from MAIG, I heard it from Obama and I watched it being parroted on CNN by a "Mayor" nationally just before the presidential inauguration.

How could they know that? I mean if it was a private sale not subjected to NCIS check just how the hell could they know. They can't! It's yet another lie used to strip rights from citizens but the media laps it up with great enthusiasm.

The guns that Obama, Bloomberg, and others claim escape background checks are those sold or transferred between private parties. But can that number really be 40 percent?

The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks - which is actually 36 percent - comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337958/gun-sales-and-background-checks-obamas-bogus-40-percent-stat-john-fund#comments

VP Biden back peddles

That’s why we need, and I’ve recommended to the president, universal background checks. Studies show that up to 40 percent of the people -- and there’s no -- let me be honest with you again, which I’ll get to in a moment. Because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct.

The Washington post speaks out on the 40% lie used to promote yet further B.S. regulation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html

He said that a larger sample size would have provided a more precise estimate of off-the-books transactions, but he and Cook were not involved in the design stage of the survey. He added that one reason why the data is so old is because the federal government has generally stopped funding such research.

Thank God! If it's studies this poorly conducted to strip us of our rights then someone did the right thing!

The follow up, Update: Obama claim on background checks moved from ‘verdict pending' to 2 Pinocchios
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html

 

[Gacowboy]

NO......I have already gone thru that crap, i have a FFL C&R license and a GWP...they already know about me, i should not have to jump back and forth through the same hoops EVERYTIME I want to buy another gun

 

[RamRoddoc]

Dated 1/16/2013 "Now is The Time" http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

 

[Shovelhead]

HELL no

 

[Constitution Hour]

NO. In my opinion this is at the very least an issue of States rights. We have a right to contract. The Government is authorized to regulate commerce, not control every aspect of it. We also have a second amendment to put the Government onnotice that our right to keep and bear arms is not up for negotiation or regulation.

 

[SMLEshooter]

Actually there IS something wrong with gun owners entertaining further restrictions on gun ownership. It's called defeat.

Well said. ^^

No, I think it's a very bad idea!!!

You actually believe that records won't be kept in any venture such as you're proposing? It's very simple to just log what name was searched. Then you have a list of possible firearm owners to search at any given time...

Reminds me of the TSA body scanners government officials swore couldn't store images.... then later we discovered that, oh yeah... they can store images.

 

[spencer60]

1 ...The claim is "40% of all gun transfers don't go through NCIS checks"...

As you detailed, that claim is complete BS. The 1994 survey (Cook, Ludwig - NIJ) results were purposely misread by the 'Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence'.

The chart in the study showed this breakdown for firearms purchases:

Gun store: 43%
Pawnshop: 6%
Other store: 11%
Gun show or flea market: 4%
Through the mail: 3%
Member of the family: 17%
Friend or acquaintance: 12%
Other: 4%

They decided that anything not a store or a pawnshop meant 'no background check' and printed the 40% number in their 'fact sheet'.

After that, everyone from the New York Times to the Brady Campaign to the White House have used it, without even bothering to check the source material.

Given that all the 'store bought' and 'mail' items must have gone through an FFL, and even Sen. Schumers' repressive new bill doesn't try and restrict transfers between family, that only leaves a maximum of 18% of transfers that may not involve a background check.

I would also tend to exclude the 'other' category. This was a survey, and if you read through the methodology, the 'other' category really should have been called the 'I don't remember' category.

The gun shows and flea markets category is probably lower these days as well, since shows tend to be more dealer-driven and revolve less around private sellers. That's a pretty small number already though, especially for such a famous 'loophole' <grin>.

In the end you could say that about 16% of transfers done without a background check, the vast majority of them between friends and acquaintances.

(BTW, the NIJ study is here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf ... Interesting reading if a bit dated)

 

[Stuckon22]

No! To the OP querie.

 

[bc]

I am asking for an opinion from members on the creation of a website for private gun owners to be able to know who they are selling a firearm to. That was all.

What are we, Nazi Germany? Neighbors checking and reporting on neighbors? Not only no, but hell no. Personally, I would prefer to see background checks go away entirely because they are nothing but costly bureaucratic "feel good" policies that are engineered to treat honest citizens as criminals while doing virtually nothing to address the real problem. Taking the rights away from citizens does not reduce crime; taking their freedom away does. If a person isn't deemed safe enough to legally own a firearm, then they shouldn't be back out on the street. It ain't rocket science.

With that said, we need to address the real issue of gun violence, which is the cultural breakdown of our society. Changing the wording from "gunshow loophole" to "universal background check" because the former didn't sell and using the deaths of innocent children to promote it is appalling. Let's not drink the koolaid.

 

[Stuckon22]

Drunk driving is a problem, no? Let's fix it by charging the law abiding citizens by taxing their vehicles only. The drunks do not have to pay anything. Make sense? Same thing here-punish/monitor the ones who are not the source of the problem. Typical liberal, knee jerk, unfounded solution......"but 60% of the people support it!"(per government survey)-(propaganda to gain more control over citizens rights)....no common sense anymore with humans.