“A 2012 study of prison inmates convicted of gun crimes in 13 states found that almost all of those who were legally prohibited from owning firearms — 96 percent — obtained them from someone who didn’t conduct a background check.” Nearly Half of Americans Are Now Covered By Universal Gun Background Checks, But Giant Loopholes Remain [via thetrace.org]
Why is this posted here?!? If I wanted to read this Shite , I can go read any of the many soon to be out of biz liberal websites. They lost. EOS. (for now)
Um… It’s pointing out that the background check system doesn’t hinder crime, because criminals can easily buy, sell, and trade guns without background checks.
Also, this implies that 4% of them (the sample was only 253, but that still seems high) were prohibited from owning firearms, but still managed to pass a 4473 check. So not only can they avoid the background check easily, but they can pass it easily, too (fake IDs are pretty cheap).
Actually, just the opposite, 96% were prohibited from owning a firearm, only 4% would have been able to pass a NICS check, if they had chosen that path to obtain their firearm.
Yeah, so what is the real point? I say the point is that criminals are always going to have access to guns. Therefore, let us Non-criminals NOT create more barriers to the rest of us obtaining, carrying, or using the same weapons we will need to defend ourselves from the bad guys. Simple logic. Its the same logic for why the cops carry guns. To quote Dirty Harry, “What did you want me to do, sneak up on ’em and yell ‘Trick or Treat?’ “
Agreed. Keeping-guns-out-of-the-hands-of-criminals is a hoary gun-control canard which is used as an excuse to further limit citizens’ ability to purchase, trade, and exchange weapons. A literal application of these “background check” laws means that just loaning a rifle to your son, cousin, or neighbor to go target shooting or deer hunting would require you to ask a government bureaucracy’s permission (that’s what a background check actually is) to do something that was traditionally a mundane, unregulated behavior. These kinds of intrusive, gun-control measures are at best more symbolic than real, forcing more gate-keeping procedures on law-abiding citizens who happen to own guns. Criminals will always be able to obtain guns regardless of the plethora of background check laws gun-control advocates want to put in place.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Is it really necessary here to once again shoot this Gun Control, Inc. red herring?
The Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” makes absolutely no provision or allowance for the government (the prohibited body) passing laws or regulations that determine WHICH of the people may keep and bear arms. There’s a reason for that.
It’s a little scary, yes, but if the government gets to decide who is a criminal that may not keep and bear arms, which of their enemies will not ultimately wind up in that category? Think about it. Please.
Actually:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
As ratified, December 15th, 1791.
Surely if Hillary had won, we’d have universal background checks to stop the black market completely! It’s common sense!
It never ceases to amaze me when people think that some law is going to stop a black market. Hello?!?!?!? A “black market”, by its very definition, does not subject itself to laws!
Name one gun control law that has ever affected the behavior of a criminal.
Well, many, if not most, of the laws made their occupation/behavior safer.
Gun free zones affect the behavior of crazies and criminals. It’s a call to the all-you-can-kill game of fame.
A close check of the records will show that neither Hillary nor BJ Clinton have concealed weapons permission slips.
Well, of course. So long as it is profitable to do so, there will always be someone willing to sell guns to those not allowed to have them. And I’m fairly certain at least some sellers do “background checks,” just not via NICS, when making those sales.
This is true for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, cars … pretty much everything. Guns are no different.
Laws provide a behavioral guide, and specify a range of penalties that may be applied when those laws are broken. Laws in and of themselves stop nothing. Otherwise nobody would ever speed, for instance.
^ This.
If government could close down one distribution channel, criminals would simply open another. Rather than playing “whack-a-mole” trying to close all of the current and-as-yet-unforeseen distribution channels, government should go after actual violent criminals who have attacked someone.
Shall not be infringed, so go EXPLETIVE DELETED yourself.
Yes! He gets it!
Here is to Trump telling the feds to be useful and any felon with a gun who gets caught committing another crime gets offered 5 bonus years.
This is like saying “grass is green”. Of course they didn’t pass a background check, they weren’t supposed to have guns to begin with. The studies also show they obtained there firearms by either stealing them, strawbuyers or from friends and family who knew they weren’t supposed to have a firearm. How do “Universal Background Checks” stop this? By definition they are prohibited individuals, criminals, they were never going to have a background check, no matter what the rules.
“Universal background checks” obviously stop this by preventing the sellers from selling those guns. Of course, nowhere in this study did they examine what kinds of people those sellers were, and whether they would have subjected themselves to universal background check laws. We are instead to assume that every one of them was a clueless suburbanite gun owner who innocently sold one of his handguns to a heavily tattooed, muscled, and accented gentleman in the parking lot of the local Rotary’s gun show.
Had to do a double take on the title and check the link to be sure. How dumb does one have to be to declare that universal background checks cover half of gun sales?
I guess the word ‘universal’ is difficult to understand. Kinda like ‘shall not’.
Talk about wag the dog. have real consequences for committing crimes instead of plea bargains and early release. If Chicago got even a little bit tougher on sentencing we would have two benefits.
1. Less criminals on the street
2. Jobs building prisons.
We could have them called Trump Prisons if that works.
I have to wonder how many (%) of Chicago murders are solved and prosecuted each year. I’m betting not very many.
I heard that the Chicago PD solves less than 25% of homicide cases.
It’s 20% according to yesterday’s TTAG article about the rising Chicago homicide rate (3/day now).
Whenever I think of the Chicago gun problem, I can’t help but remember Joe Flaherty’s bit part in Stripes as the Czech border guard, whose recognition of America comes down to: “Oh, Chicago! Bang-Bang!”
So, a thief sells a gun he stole without requiring a background check. What is their point? Oh, they left out that little tidbit about the seller being a criminal too…which then makes this article propaganda.
Their point?
If nobody had any guns to steal, there wouldn’t be any stolen guns to worry about.
The criminals would have to make their own guns or pay somebody to make guns for them.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-13/farmers-copying-guns-at-home-make-philippines-deadlier-than-u-s-
Banning citizens from owning firearms will work as well as the “war on drugs”.
Make something illegal and criminals will step into the void and import them in any quantity the market demands.
It also makes criminals out of ordinary citizens that did nothing wrong previously.
The Trace. Just as clueless as the #nevertrumpers and the #blacklivesmatter crowd. Oh, wait. They’re one and the same.
It’s like the words ‘black market’ are right there under their noses but they can’t see them.
Well duh …?
Duh!
They bought them from another criminal! Amazing how those guys selling to criminals dont conduct NICS checks on their buyers. I’m stunned.
This was some manner of “study”? So we asked the criminals and believed their answers? Can we really be that stupid? I don’t need a study to know the answer, Background checks are stupid, cannot accomplish anything, should be eliminated along with Hillary. That is a real cute .327 Mag, tho, is that 2 1/2″?
Think With Brain:
have you ever in your life heard of Identity Theft?
have you ever heard of a case of identity theft uncovered by a background check?
have you ever heard of an ex con who lost his parole as the result of a background check?
the corollary to “if it works, don’t fix it” is “if it doesn’t work, fix it or fling it”
They don’t tell you the majority of them were either from straw purchases or theft. Where are the prosecutions? Universal background checks will not change this, only enforcement will.
Maybe we should write a law making criminals illegal?
And how many illegal drug buys had a prescription? None?!? Oh, yeah, that’s right, they’re ILLEGAL!!!
If you want universal background checks, it’s easy- just draft up a bill, or better yet, email Manchin, Toomey, or any variety of other douchers and see if they’ll send you one of their “stand-by” copies, introduce it to congress, watch it get squashed instantly, stage a catered sit-in complete with liberal media cameras so the world can watch tears of sorrow roll down your face, give up, and then try it all over again. Repeat as many times as necessary for you to finally get it through your thick skull that it’s not going to happen.
The .pdf won’t open for mew in Firefox.
“A 2012 study of prison inmates convicted of gun crimes in 13 states found that almost all of those who were legally prohibited from owning firearms — 96 percent — obtained them from someone who didn’t conduct a background check.”
YEAH! They STEAL THEM. Or buy them on the Black Market,or get them from another criminal, or from the gang banger they just killed.
Law doesn’t work proactive against the criminal. Law only works retroactively after the criminal has violated the law. The fundamental fallacy of the “universal background check” is the unspoken premises that a law, any law, can proactively protect us. Law doesn’t work that way. It’s always LAW ENFORCEMENT. And only then when law enforcement is coupled with long mandatory prison terms that the cost/benefit analysis of the criminal changes. (The one exception is self defense where the cost of committing a crime could be the on the spot loss of life of the criminal.)
The libs should stop trying to pass new laws and start insisting that prosecutors vigorously enforce the laws already on the books. But the idea of swift, strict law enforcement would turn all the libs into conservatives.
Senior Gun Owner 1950
Wow. I’m really surprised that black market gun dealers and people whose guns were stolen didn’t conduct background checks on the buyers and the thieves.
You’re still missing the loophole that they’re pointing out. In most states it is still legal to sell guns privately without a background check. They may have purchased them from law abiding citizens who had the best intentions. Don’t get me wrong, I believe private sales without government intervention is the only way to excersise our right without getting on a list, and that criminal sellers will still sell guns to other criminals regardless if background checks are required. I’m just pointing out that you’re missing their rationale.
I can accept that. Let’s then move to “the law does nothing but inconvenience law abiding citizens and cost a lot of money. Toss it on the trash heap and move on.” Making it bigger and more expensive, while it *still* won’t work, for the exact same reasons, is seriously stupid. How about we repeal the farce we have, and replace it with a law requiring background checks for convicted felons only, leave the rest of us alone. If you believe simply passing a law will make a difference, that should take care of it! If you still need more, pass a law against shooting people.
We know their rationale, we just also realize that their decision NOT to separate out legitimate private sales from the straw purchases and criminal dealers implies the breakdown would not be helpful to their case.
We need to repeal the 8th and start actually punishing crime. When someone can shoot a cop in the back and where worried about how humane lethal injection is society is doomed
We can punish crime by keeping the 8th and dumping left wing judges.
Gee – Thanks I didn’t know this.
JasonM says:
November 12, 2016 at 09:46
Um… It’s pointing out that the background check system doesn’t hinder crime, because criminals can easily buy, sell, and trade guns without background checks.
If you read the post that I responded to, you’ll see that not everybody understood the reason behind the post. Hence my explanation.
I wonder how many criminals report income earned from illegal activities on schedule c?
I know when I’m gonna go cat burgling, I make sure to my rappel gear is in the ATF (and rappel gear) registry.
**BREAKING NEWS!!**
Nearly 98% of theTrace.org staff has recently suffered from severe depression and while valiantly continuing their work during the grieving process, they will produce articles and info-graphics with certain key words that are signals of mental breakdown. These key words include: commonsense, gun control, gun buyback, NRA conspiracy, vast racism is why we lost the election of our candidate, and many other such factually incorrect statements. Also the use of overblown statistics that cherry pick out of context data sets coupled with sweeping generalizations are all clear indicators of mental entropy increasing in these poor unfit basket of unemployables. Watch for these signs of mental illness and please report ANY individuals or groups you see demonstrating these same behaviors to the nearest police station for immediate interview by law enforcement personnel.
The American people will FINALLY have REAL commonsense gun laws that uphold the words of our US Constitution in all 50 states, and dare I say it, increase the recognition of our rights to include the dismantling of SBR/SBS, Ammo bans, enacting of the HPA, and other necessary recognition’s of our rights. Without fear of liberal intransigence, or bureaucratic resistance from Obama appointees, our president will remove the phrase control from gun control. Eat it Trace, your time as media darling is kaput.
so, if we all hold dear our right and enjoyment of legally possessing our guns, it would stand to reason that we would like to see those who violate and abuse the right be given extra harsh punishment, i.e. mandatory minimum sentences for using guns in a violent crime. Just the same as we would lime to those who sneak into this country deported if they cannot follow our rules of legal immigration. Nothing will ever change unless those who use guns to commit crimes are hammered with severe penalty.
UBC won’t apply to stolen guns; this ought to be obvious.
UBC is presumed to enable the ATF to trace a crime gun to the lawful owner who sold it to a lawful [straw-]buyer who transferred it without a BC. Surprise! This can’t be made to work. The ATF will have no clue which of 60,000 FFLs officiated in the sale by the lawful owner to the lawful [straw-]buyer. The ATF can’t ask all 60,000 FFLs to search their Bound Books looking for a particular make + model + serial. (Not, of course, without first requiring all 60,000 FFLs to computerize their Bound Books).
If, by luck or by magic, ATF finds the 4473 form for the UBC’ed sale, such [straw-]buyers will grind the serial numbers off the guns before selling them; rendering them untraceable.
If the criminal justice system vigorously prosecutes possession of a gun with a defaced serial number then straw-buyers will have to launder the legally-purchased gun (parts) by substituting an illegally-manufactured frame/receiver with a counterfeit make + model + serial. This should add about $125 to their cost-of-goods-sold. (E.g., say the Glock 19 is the most popular in the black market. Find a basement machinist with a $10,000 CNC machine and have him start manufacturing a few thousand countrfit G-19 frames. Should be able to do this for $125 or so.)
If we assume that black-market guns are never stolen, only sold to straw-buyers, then the maximum impact of UBC should be to raise the price of an illegal gun by about $125.
Surely, we will all agree, that additional cost of $125 will price all young minority males with no job out-of-the-market for black-market guns.
Making the sale of guns between people without a background check illegal will
in NO WAY prevent such sales. It WILL however turn many honest Americans
into criminals….and THAT is one of the main reasons for the existence of such laws.
Such laws also have the benefit of taking a portion of such sales and moving them
from the UNSUPERVISED realm to the recorded, registered and if they want confiscated
realm. Again….one of the real reasons behind these laws.
These laws of course have NOTHING to do with guns, crime or safety….they are, like ALL
such laws about CONTROL.
The person whose gun was stolen most likely did not conduct a background check on the person who stole it. This should not surprise anyone.
All this proves is that criminals get their guns from the black market in guns and drugs. A drug dealer who takes guns in trade always has guns to sell and HE will never get an FFL. EVERY transaction done in the street and alleyway black market is ALREADY illegal. What is missing is enforcement, not laws.
Comments are closed.