Have Background Checks Ever Prevented a Crime?

[rainbowbob]

Another thread suggested correctly that we need to re-frame the term "gun show loophole" to reflect what it's purveyors really mean: "private sales prohibition".

Not wanting to hijack that thread, I decided to start this one to discuss what - if any - evidence they have that background checks have ever saved a single life or prevented a single crime.

I'm asking this question because I don't know the answer. But let me say this at the outset: I believe that even if background checks were effective in preventing violent criminals from committing violent acts - it would not constitute a reasonable justification to curtail our freedom.

However, I think it is important that we are armed with facts in this ongoing debate. I realize most here will be against background checks under any circumstances (but I may be wrong about that). That stand will be more convincing if we have logic and facts on our side.

I'm interested in hearing the "other" side of the debate in order to more accurately assess their position.

 

[rbernie]

DoJ statistics only show how many NICS denials result in prosecution; there is no empirical way to KNOW that a future crime was averted.

 

[rainbowbob]

there is no empirical way to KNOW that a future crime was averted.

That is true of course.

So what IS their justification for background checks? How did they come to be enacted? Are there any measurement even suggesting they may be effective?

Short of evidence - what is the theory behind them? We all know criminals can get guns no matter what laws are enacted to try and prevent them from it.

 

[rbernie]

The justification was that Hinkley lied on his 4473 when he bought the Rohm that he used to shoot Jim Brady during the Reagan assassination effort.

Assuming that the GCA '68 prohibitions were constitutional and useful, it was an easy sell to convince lawmakers to grandstand on 'being tough on crime' by instituting a way to enforce the GCA'68. Nobody was much interested in going back and questioning the rationale behind the GCA'68.

 

[BigO01]

Trying to figure the answer to the OP's question is like trying to figure out if you prevented a accident by taking a drunks car keys and making them call a cab .

It is ASSUMED that you prevented one and arguably so but we will never know with any kind of certainty just as no one will ever know how many lives are saved every year by the vaccinations children have to get before going to school .

All that can be done is look at past data when nothing was ever done try to adjust the number for population changes and make a best guess .

 

[TexasRifleman]

DoJ statistics only show how many NICS denials result in prosecution; there is no empirical way to KNOW that a future crime was averted.

And this is an interesting statistic. It's a Federal crime for a prohibited person to try to buy a firearm. The prosecution rate for prohibited persons who lie on the 4473 to try to buy one is .02 %. That's POINT zero two.

So what good is a law that no one enforces? So, did those turned away by NICS give up? Or did they get their guns through another source such as stolen, straw purchase etc? The statistics show they simply got the guns somewhere else, so did the NICS check really prevent a crime?

As for the impact on overall crime it's difficult to say directly.

What we DO know is that the overall gun crime rate is about the same today as it was in 1967, before the GCA was passed. It's about the same today as it was before Brady was put in place too.

There was a drop in GUN suicides after the initial Brady law, which required a background check and waiting period, came out. But, the OVERALL suicide rate stayed the same so people just found another tool. That seems to be a good indicator that people who are intent on doing something don't give that up if their tool of choice is unavailable.

There was a spike in gun violence in the late 80's that coincided with the drug war "Miami Vice" days, but that's come back down too.

At the end of the day the crime rate using guns is about the same as it's been for decades.

Take what you will from that.

 

[rbernie]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm

Other than the 'crack binge' blip in the early ninties, you'll note that gun crime has remained remarkably steady across the last three decades or so. If there's a benefit in the NICS/Brady check, it sure isn't represented in the data - I would expect to see a crime rate significantly less today than in 1973 if the background check was actually keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and preventing crimes from happening.

Oh, and note the following from the above link:

According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2001 about 39% of the deaths that resulted from firearm injuries were homicides, 57% were suicides, 3% were unintentional, and 1% were of undetermined intent.

 

[TexasRifleman]

What Brady has done, and unfortunately many pro gun people even here on THR have bought into, is promote a "feeling" that it must have helped. I've had countless debates with people here and other places and they always come back to the "feeling" that it must have done some good.

That's a very poor way to legislate a nation, going on "feelings".

 

[ArmedBear]

WRT suicides with firearms, background checks, and even more, waiting periods, led to people renting guns at ranges, or just loading them at store counters, and killing themselves with these guns on the spot.

I don't have numbers; I was on the board of a very busy range that was open long hours 7 days per week, though, and our manager had experienced this. We, like other ranges, implemented rental policies to try to discourage this.

Now, either suicidal people suddenly became very thrifty, or very scrupulous, and didn't want to run up their credit cards when they wouldn't be around to pay the bill, OR background checks and waiting periods simply led them to committing suicide in ways that hurt others, rather than just doing it at home. They're still dead. It just made a bigger mess.

 

[ArmedBear]

That's a very poor way to legislate a nation, going on "feelings".

What legislation in our lifetimes isn't based on feelings? Scary, really.

 

[BigO01]

What legislation in our lifetimes isn't based on feelings? Scary, really.

Actually ArmedBear all of it is even prior to and will be long after our lifetimes .

Even the Constitution and the original Ten Amendments were , after all Laws are just Rules .

Just as a for instance how many people here let their children at age 6 cook ?

I would bet not many yet when I was that age my Mom supervised me and taught me to make a few simple things on the gas stove at that age such as Bacon and fried eggs , French Toast and Pancakes , by age 11 or so I was Bar-B-Q-ing and starting the fires by myself .

And I'll bet you're old enough that you shot off fireworks without your parents there as a kid and in todays world many parents would freak out if their ten year old was caught with a pack of firecrackers !

 

[Jim K]

No way to answer most of those questions, but I have witnessed a couple of cases where a gun shop customer, told that his name would be submitted to the FBI for a check, decided he didn't really want the gun after all.

Was a crime prevented, or did someone just not want to go through the routine? The dealer had no legal right to detain the would-be customer or ask why his aversion to the NICS check.

Jim

 

[ArmedBear]

a gun shop customer, told that his name would be submitted to the FBI for a check, decided he didn't really want the gun after all.

No, he realized that he'd have to see a fence and get one stolen from one of us, instead of a gun shop. And the theft of that gun might have involved all sorts of ugly things, including loss of life. Its sale created the incentive for thieves to steal more.

 

[TexasRifleman]

told that his name would be submitted to the FBI for a check, decided he didn't really want the gun after all.

Decided he really didn't want THAT particular gun after all. I'd bet dollars to donuts he got a gun.

As bizarre as it sounds, AB makes a point that the NICS check probably increases gun theft. Not an argument for or against the check, but it's an interesting point.

 

[CoRoMo]

Looking at a larger picture, the Brady law (NICS) has pushed nefarious acquisitions to the black market, and pretty much all of those transactions are crimes in & of themselves, and none of them are 4473-traceable. So we have more gun crimes occurring because of a law that was suppose to reduce gun crime.

 

[rainbowbob]

...background checks, and even more, waiting periods, led to people renting guns at ranges, or just loading them at store counters, and killing themselves with these guns on the spot.

Very good point - and one that has been recently demonstrated at a local pawn/gun shop. Last week, a "friend" of the owner asked to see a shotgun, pulled a shell out of his pocket, loaded the weapon, and took his head off right there.

...see a fence and get one stolen from one of us, instead of a gun shop. And the theft of that gun might have involved all sorts of ugly things, including loss of life.

...we have more gun crimes occurring because of a law that was suppose to reduce gun crime.

Also good points. So often, the unintended consequences of policies are the oppposite of the stated intent.

Without drifting into politics - it sure is a good argument for "less is more" when it comes to the governance of a free people. I've become more and more convinced that the best days in this republic are the days that the elected officials are in recess.

 

[CoRoMo]

Yep, this nation is better off on those days when a snowstorm shuts down the capital city, and all the elected officials and their staff stay at home.

 

[ArmedBear]

Ironically, we might be able to trace more "crime guns" if there were no background checks. Common criminals are not typically Mensa types, and would, at least in some cases, just fill out the form and buy a gun at the store. That's how we know that Hinckley lied on the 4473... He FILLED OUT a 4473.

Smart criminals don't walk into banks with pistols for a few hundred bucks and 20 years in the pen. They're doing identity theft, which can net millions and is generally punished by a short sentence at Club Fed, if the perp is even caught, which happens FAR less often than bank robbers - who are almost ALWAYS caught.

 

[merlinfire]

The simple answer is, there's just no way to really know. When you're talking prevention, you deal with maybe's and might have's, and none of us can tell the future. A shot in the dark, as it were.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The simple answer is, there's just no way to really know. When you're talking prevention, you deal with maybe's and might have's, and none of us can tell the future. A shot in the dark, as it were.

Weren't you just yesterday insisting that background checks for firearm sales at gun shows would decrease crime and that you supported legislation closing the so-called "gun show loophole"?

So, you admitted yesterday that guns from gun shows didn't have much to do with crime, now you say that background checks have no provable impact on crime, yet you support more gun laws......

See why several people made the leap to you being some kind of shill for an anti gun organization? Whether it's true or not you have to admit your statements on these 2 topics don't really jive.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Locks keep honest men honest. They won't stop a determined criminal.

 

[Keauxbi]

If anyone ever argues that NICS prevents crime, remind them that Seung-Hui Cho passed background check and killed 32 unarmed students at Virginia Tech.

 

[Slamfire]

It is hard to know.

A local gun dealer told me of morons who told him, as they were filling out the paperwork, that they were going to take that gun and kill someone.

Of course, the gun dealer stopped the sale.

Don't know if these morons found an alternative, or cooled down in the mean time, because it is hard to know.

 

[shockwave]

we might be able to trace more "crime guns" if there were no background checks.

It does not strike me as a major problem that we make it illegal for felons and the mentally unstable and chronic DUIers and wife beaters to obtain firearms. A simple NICS background check for buyers is a fairly minimal thing. I think a lot of people are extremely confused and falsely believe that the intent of these laws is to prevent criminals from buying guns. I don't know why anybody would be so foolish as to believe that. The point is to make it illegal for prohibited persons to purchase firearms. Since sales to such persons is illegal, sellers have to protect themselves and the current system allows for that.

 

[brboyer]

No way to answer most of those questions, but I have witnessed a couple of cases where a gun shop customer, told that his name would be submitted to the FBI for a check, decided he didn't really want the gun after all.

Was a crime prevented, or did someone just not want to go through the routine? The dealer had no legal right to detain the would-be customer or ask why his aversion to the NICS check.

Jim

Perhaps he just decided he did not want anyone to have a record of his firearm purchases?