The system is flawed. And even if the fixes ordered by the president’s executive actions were to be fully implemented, it wouldn’t reduce gun violence.
And that’s what supporters of universal background checks are saying,
The effort to repair the system stems from widespread agreement that it’s rendered nearly useless because of two key problems: A giant-sized loophole exists in that some private sellers aren’t required to do checks; and many states aren’t providing the feds with the vital needed information to maintain a meaningful database of those who, legally, have no right to purchase firearms. In particular this pertains to mental health problems and drug use.
“Most Americans support background checks, but they … have very little clue about what that means,” said David Kopel, a gun law expert and adjunct Constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. “When you phrase something in an attractive way like ‘universal background checks,’ who wouldn’t be for it? But if you get into the details, there’s a bit more grey-area.”
[...]
While the system is well-intentioned, many argue it’s just not working and they’ve got plenty of evidence to point to.
For instance, while the background checks cover mental illness, few states are submitting the required records to the federal database. From 2004 and 2011, the number of mental health records made available to NICS increased dramatically from 126,000 to 1.2 million, according to a July report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). But the GAO noted that the increase is largely a result of efforts by only 12 states.
Under the current restrictions regarding mental health issues, gun purchases are prohibited for anyone found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or found legally incompetent to handle their own affairs.
Like mental health records, drug violations are also under-reported to the feds, according to reports. The GAO concluded that “most states” aren’t informing the feds of failed drug tests, as the federal background check law requires — with 30 states not making any noncriminal data available.
With regards to drugs, the law bars anyone with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest happening in the last year. It also restricts someone who is convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the last year.
That includes marijuana. And with Colorado and Washington becoming the first two states to legalize recreational marijuana — and others already legalizing medicinal marijuana — those new state laws are bumping up against the federal background checks, experts say.
It gets even messier. In 2009, 70,000 people tried to buy a gun illegally. Only 70 were prosecuted. And closing the so-called “gun show” loophole, which includes the private sale of guns between individuals, is ludicrous. Imagine doing a background check on your law-abiding cousin who wants to buy a handgun from you. What about collectors who trade guns?
The problems with trying to micro-regulate a vast and complicated industry is that inevitably, you are going to discover it just doesn’t matter in solving the overall problem:
Even beyond the gun show loophole, questions about the effectiveness of the checks still linger. Researchers in 2000 reviewed more than a decade of crime data in states with and without background checks. They found no significant difference in murder rates in states that had implemented the checks and states that had not, according to the study, which was published in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
“There are a lot more things that you could spend money on that could be more cost-effective and get to the root of the problem,” Lott said. “Background checks might not really do anything, but if it’s going to make people feel better — a placebo effect — I guess it’s worth it.”
Is it “worth it?” Many would say it isn’t, based on the idea that the increased scrutiny would have no corresponding benefit to protecting society. The universal background check is a political solution to a social and cultural problem. It allows politicians to claim they are “doing something about the problem” without much political pain. Even if states fully complied with requests for data, people would still slip through the cracks. As we saw with the Sandy Hook tragedy when the mentally disturbed gunman simply stole weapons from his mother, if someone is determined to get a gun, there isn’t much anyone can do to stop them.
Some people shouldn’t have access to guns — everyone agrees with that statement. The question that should concerns us is; are the measures we employ to keep weapons out of the hands of some people necessary and effective?
If not, we should think twice about passing the political window dressing of universal background checks.
Naw! Say it ain’t so!
It has been my experience that “banning” something or making something such as certain guns illegal only makes it that more attractive. I have lived in dry counties where alcohol was prohibited. The number of “town drunks” outnumbered the larger counties and they had easy access to just skip over to the “wet ones” and give revenue to those counties or across state lines and get it there. The reason I use alcohol as an example is because it is true even if you use drugs or prostitution. Just as when we were children, some folk’s never grow up. If we are told we can’t have something, that is the something we are bound and determined to get if for nothing else, just for the self-satisfaction of showing and telling the other person, I can have it, and be damned for telling me I can’t.
Personally, I think this whole thing is all about Power over the masses. The middle finger in our faces from the Agitator-In-Thief and his cohorts. You can almost feel the hatred in his eyes and demeanor every time he gets up to make one of his “beloved” speeches to which I cannot turn him off fast enough. Unless we are able to make the next election turn the voter fraud around in 2014 whereas to slow this fellow down, it is going to be a long 4 more years.
It has been my experience that “banning” something or making something such as certain guns illegal only makes it that more attractive. I have lived in dry counties where alcohol was prohibited. The number of “town drunks” outnumbered the larger counties and they had easy access to just skip over to the “wet ones” and give revenue to those counties or across state lines and get it there. The reason I use alcohol as an example is because it is true even if you use drugs or prostitution. Just as when we were children, some folk’s never grow up. If we are told we can’t have something, that is the something we are bound and determined to get if for nothing else, just for the self-satisfaction of showing and telling the other person, I can have it, and be darned for telling me I can’t.
Personally, I think this whole thing is all about Power over the masses. The middle finger in our faces from the Agitator-In-Thief and his cohorts. You can almost feel the hatred in his eyes and demeanor every time he gets up to make one of his “beloved” speeches to which I cannot turn him off fast enough. Unless we are able to make the next election turn the voter fraud around in 2014 whereas to slow this fellow down, it is going to be a long 4 more years.
You don’t see these mass shootings, which ostensibly is the driving force behind this latest push of various gun control measures, being perpetrated by the guy purchasing his weapons from a friend of acquaintance.
The reason probably being that people who know someone who is a little “off” aren’t generally inclined to help arm them.
The shooters are practically all under the care of a psychologist or psychiatrist, and are generally all on medications.
Passing a law to “close” this “loophole” won’t stop the private sale of guns between individuals as they’ll just ignore the law, and it won’t stop the mentally ill from getting a gun as they will find some way to get their hands on one regardless.
It won’t stop criminals as they already circumvent this background check system.
So why bother?
It’d be interesting to see a study that looked at just how effective a background check was in reducing crime.
Of course they know it won’t solve the problem. Solving problems isn’t the goal. Solving problems puts them out of business.
There is a simple response to this background-check madness: compile a list of shootings from, say, the last ten years, and find out how many of the shooters a) used illegal or stolen guns (no background check); b) used legally-purchased guns acquired with a background check; c) used firearms purchased legally without a background check.
I would lay odds that the legitimate shootings—those done in self-defense—overwhelmingly fall in the latter two categories, with little difference between them, and the illegitimate shootings, such as mass killings, robberies, and gang violence, overwhelmingly fall in the first category. I would further lay odds that shootings related to jealousy or stalking or other forms of domestic/relationship violence that are done with legally-acquired arms overwhelmingly fall in the category of obtained-with-background-check.
A clear database of this sort would almost certainly de-bunk the value and efficacy of background checks.
background checks? what a novel idea.
too bad we couldn’t get a real one done on a certain undercover kenyan.
maybe if we all start calling people wanting background checks ‘checkers’, it will all go away. works well enough for progressives.
now, let’s all listen to our messaih-kenyan for the next ‘word of the day’ …
immigration! that’s it. immigration. everybody got that? alright, let’s run w/ it. go msm. go congress. go dumbed-down. go obomabots. all aboard the stupid train. the i-won has spoken.
wonder what the gifted won will apply his superior stank to next? making football safer? its good to have one so experienced in so many things. wait – photo-op posing w/ football in front of uniformed cadets laughing, clapping. cut. print it. what next great one? basketball jump shots? piloting space craft? space walking tips? maybe he could star in the next james bond movie? somebody call the studio.
what a bunch of maroons.
The President is trying to get the Second Amendment reduced to being the “hunting” amendment, and it isn’t. It is the “self-defense” amendment–self-defense against those who invade the peace, self-defense against those who invade the nation, and, hopefully rarely, self-defense against those who invade the rights of the people.
“Well regulated” as used in the Second Amendment means simply that everyone knows how to use a gun.
Marginalizing gun use by limiting it to hunters or other sportsmen — or for that matter by failing to teach safe gun handling in public schools, let alone pursuing “zero tolerance” policies that prohibit possession of an L-shaped scrap of paper — therefore violates the purpose of the Second Amendment.
“And even if the fixes ordered by the president’s executive actions were to be fully implemented, it wouldn’t reduce gun violence.”
First, congratulations on using the proper term — “gun violence”
It should actually be “crimes committed with guns’ that is being debated. Then, the people could more acurately grasp the problem and all th data.
Background testing of only felony and certain misdemeanor ‘convictions’ is hardly an accurate test of who should and should not own guns. There are thousands of serious crimes involving guns that are plea-bargined down to irrelevant misdemeanors and or felonies that recieve probation and then expunged. LIkewise, the current background does not include information of psychologically imparied individuals in the household of a potential gun owner or if, potential owner themselves have a record of serious psychological impairment.
Background checks have to become more inclusive of pertinent information!