Have Background Checks Ever Prevented a Crime?

[shockwave]

Actually, it produces a culture of binge drinking, and it doesn't make it hard. It just makes naive people like you FEEL like it makes it hard.

Nope. Although I used to buy cigs out of vending machines when I was a teenager. Heh.

 

[ArmedBear]

Yes. You just proved it with your own post, where you celebrated the fact that it "doesn't make it easy."

The statistics, on the other hand, show that it doesn't make a real difference. So, the only real impact is on the way you feel about it.

Some people just get the warm fuzzies at the idea of government control. That's what this whole thread has exposed.

 

[merlinfire]

merlinfire, if you don't believe in defending yourself, most of us here are probably living in a very different universe. It would be difficult to understand yours.

Perhaps you can explain this, just a bit.

I don't have to explain this to you, but I will say only this. My reasons are religious.

Yet I respect the fact that not everyone believes as I do, and thus have no problem with other people making that determination for themselves.

Make what you will of that.

 

[ArmedBear]

There's no need to get defensive about your religious beliefs. I respect the right of whomever to believe whatever they want, as long as they don't try to use force, including government force, to compel me to do the same. I would hope that others wouldn't attack someone's religious beliefs.

On the other hand, much as I might like the guy and respect his autonomy in every way, I wouldn't pay any heed to a devout Mormon's opinions about single malt Scotch.

 

[brboyer]

Thanks for the laugh. Seriously, you don't know anything about me so knock off the yammer. Now, you think you have some sort of point that background checks don't prevent criminals from blah blah blah. Again, only a fool would believe that. I certainly don't believe it. What I do sort of like is the idea that some criminal felon, drug addict, etc., can't walk into my local gun store and start shopping. He has to commit a crime to get his weapon, somebody has to commit a crime to sell it to him, and if either are caught there will be consequences.

An interesting and related item here is that some above are railing at the current framework because it isn't perfect in every way. Too bad. Life isn't perfect and our laws certainly aren't. They don't have to be perfect. If you demand absolute perfection in all things you're going to be unhappy, camp-wise.

Now, do we want all firearms to be available to all individuals? Some here advocate for that, but that isn't going to happen. Do we want absolute iron-clad guarantees that no prohibited person ever obtain a firearm? Not possible and that won't happen. So what we have is a rough balance between the extremes. It's not unlike our laws about not selling tobacco and alcohol to the underaged. Doesn't stop 'em, but it doesn't make it easy for them, either.

What I do sort of like is the idea that some criminal felon, drug addict, etc., can't walk into my local gun store and start shopping. He has to commit a crime to get his weapon, somebody has to commit a crime to sell it to him, and if either are caught there will be consequences.

According to the FBI, criminal history, in general, makes up about 82% of the NICS denials, of those 54% are felonies. So this comes out to about 23,000 for 2007 - from a total of over 5 million. So less than one-half of 1 percent of NICS transactions, in 2007, resulted in a denial because of a 'felony' conviction.

So it is completely reasonable to infringe on the rights of the other 99.5% + of us? Oh, and lets not forget the multi-hundred billion dollar government program to do this for us.

It's been reported that the government only attempts prosecution for about 1% of that number, so lets call that 230. Yep, that makes me feel better!

Data > Emotion!

There is no possible way that anyone could determine in any way whatsoever, that any one of those denials prevented a crime. In your own words: Again, only a fool would believe that!



ETA: Felonies can include shipping Orchids, playing penny-ante poker with your friends, taking an extra Blue Crab or two when out crabbing and thousands of other stupid so-called 'crimes'.

 

[glove]

No because if the bad guy fails his NICS background check he can get a gun on the streets or steal one.

 

[TexasRifleman]

No because if the bad guy fails his NICS background check he can get a gun on the streets or steal one.

One line answer, all true, lock the thread here

 

[One-Time]

It's not unlike our laws about not selling tobacco and alcohol to the underaged. Doesn't stop 'em, but it doesn't make it easy for them, either.

I never had any problems getting alcohol when I was a teenager, I never went w/o alcohol if I wanted some, so it made no difference to me and was no harder in any aspect

 

[shockwave]

I never had any problems getting alcohol when I was a teenager, I never went w/o alcohol if I wanted some, so it made no difference to me and was no harder in any aspect

I never had the slightest difficulty. Things were different then. Well... some creativity was occasionally required. What's amusing in this discussion to me are the claims of "rights infringement." I've had to jump through more hoops to buy a car than to purchase my arsenal - an ongoing project. Each buy has involved my ordering or picking out a gun, filling out a form, then taking it home. The shotgun was about 3 minutes or so. Didn't feel like any infringement was happening. Last revolver I got at a gunshow. Took about 3 minutes and I walked out the door with it in hand. The heavy jackboot of the tyrannical government did not appear to be on my neck at the time.

However, were I some criminal felon, I couldn't have done those or the other buys, or gotten a CWP. Nothing here appears particularly broken. My personal position, by the way, is aligned with the NRA: enforce the laws currently on the books. No additional laws needed. We could probably repeal a few of the silly ones.

 

[kenno]

I don't know if this is common knowladge but if you have an outstanding legal dispute like my friend did an NCIS will notify local law enforcement who will proceed to the gun store and arrest you. This happened to a guy I know, he was behind on his child support, busted.

 

[Domineaux]

Yes not paying child support will indeed cause you to fail NCIS but considering than 0.02% of fails are actually prosecuted (read the link I posted earlier to thefiringline) your friend is likely bs'ing you about local LE's coming to get him from the store.

ps. If he is behind on paying child support I have no sympathy for him being denied the purchase of a gun.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I've had to jump through more hoops to buy a car than to purchase my arsenal - an ongoing project. Each buy has involved my ordering or picking out a gun, filling out a form, then taking it home. The shotgun was about 3 minutes or so. Didn't feel like any infringement was happening. Last revolver I got at a gunshow. Took about 3 minutes and I walked out the door with it in hand. The heavy jackboot of the tyrannical government did not appear to be on my neck at the time.

And again, you keep posting as if you are the only person on the planet. There are plenty of documented cases of law abiding citizens being denied purchases through NICS errors.

Your attitude of "screw them as long as I am getting what I want" is deplorable.

I'm really happy for you that you have never experienced these problems, but if you did I would be standing there arguing on your side. It's a shame you won't do the same.

 

[rainbowbob]

If he is behind on paying child support I have no sympathy for him being denied the purchase of a gun.

You may have no sympathy for someone who is unable (job loss, poverty, etc) to pay what may have been an egregious settlement - but does that mean he should lose his right to defend himself?

 

[Domineaux]

You may have no sympathy for someone who is unable (job loss, poverty, etc) to pay what may have been an egregious settlement - but does that mean he should lose his right to defend himself?

Correct as I feel he should handle responsibilities ahead of buying things. If he hadn't already bought a means of self defense then why should he now urgently need one ahead of contributing to his child(ren) as ordered by the courts?

ps. He doesn't lose the ability to defend himself, just the ability to purchase a gun through an FFL.

 

[shockwave]

There are plenty of documented cases of law abiding citizens being denied purchases through NICS errors.

No law is perfect. There are thousands on the "no-fly" list who get hassled at airports for no reason. The price we pay for making it illegal for violent sadistic child-raping felons to obtain firearms legally is that the occasional glitch will happen. This happens all the time with all databases and the answer does not involve eliminating the very few, very modest, minimal efforts we have in place to keep Mr Bad Guy from legally purchasing weapons.

I am telling you that the current framework is not a dictatorial horrible regime of socialist communist government bureau apparatchiks or whatever your hobby horse may be. Like our laughable efforts to curtail sales of tobacco and liquor to kids, it's basically the bare minimum. If you can't live with that, then just move to Somalia where there are no laws - it's the ultimate Libertarian paradise.

 

[brboyer]

No law is perfect. There are thousands on the "no-fly" list who get hassled at airports for no reason. The price we pay for making it illegal for violent sadistic child-raping felons to obtain firearms legally is that the occasional glitch will happen. This happens all the time with all databases and the answer does not involve eliminating the very few, very modest, minimal efforts we have in place to keep Mr Bad Guy from legally purchasing weapons.

I am telling you that the current framework is not a dictatorial horrible regime of socialist communist government bureau apparatchiks or whatever your hobby horse may be. Like our laughable efforts to curtail sales of tobacco and liquor to kids, it's basically the bare minimum. If you can't live with that, then just move to Somalia where there are no laws - it's the ultimate Libertarian paradise.

the answer does not involve eliminating the very few, very modest, minimal efforts we have in place to keep Mr Bad Guy from legally purchasing weapons.

the occasional glitch will happen

Tell that to the 313,716 individuals that were delayed their purchase in 2007 or the 16,500 folks that had to work the the several month long appeal process because of this "Modest", "Minimal" system.

20 times more people are infringed upon than are prevented form purchasing.

But you got yours everytime, without delay, right?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Tell that to the 313,716 individuals that were delayed their purchase in 2007 or the 16,500 folks that had to work the the several month long appeal process because of this "Modest", "Minimal" system.

20 times more people are infringed upon than are prevented form purchasing.

Remember, he said he didn't care since he wasn't one of them.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

The NICS check can't read mind's or see what's in someone's psyche. A person can pass an NICS check and then go rob a bank. It does nothing to stop crime.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Well of course you'd answer "no," but that doesn't mean you're getting a gun. If law enforcement knows you broke laws and that you're running from them, then not only will NICS deny you, the operator will probably tell the dealer that police are on the way.

Problem is, many of the questions on the form would make the arrest invalid as it violates the right against self-incrimination.

 

[wishin]

I could be wrong; not a lawyer. It seems to me that the Fifth Amendment doesn't prevent you from incriminating yourself. Answering the question negates the right.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The prohibition on "prohibited persons" buying guns has only exasperated efforts to curb crime. The prohibition has created a demand for black market guns, ergo, it created a black market for guns. The demand for guns in the black market has made stealing guns more profitable than would be otherwise. "Prohibited persons" continue to arm themselves through the black market and commit violent crime.

The only way to put an end to the black market in guns is to keep the customers of the black market - the "prohibited persons" - locked up. It's so simple it boggles the mind. The only thing wrong with keeping violent criminals locked up is that doing so eliminates an excuse the anti-gun-rights crowd uses to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to arm themselves.

So, to answer the OP question, I'd have to say, "No". Background checks have made more crime.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Problem is, many of the questions on the form would make the arrest invalid as it violates the right against self-incrimination.

It's the simple fact that the Fifth prevents government from compelling you to be a witness against yourself. The 4473 is nothing more than a trap. It accomplishes nothing that the law prohibiting a prohibited person from obtaining a gun already does except for adding the opportunity to catch you in a lie. Being compelled to fill out the 4473 in order to buy a gun is not necessarily compelling you to be a witness against yourself if you are a law abiding citizen. If you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to report against yourself. If you are a prohibited person, then you do have something to report against yourself. It is not a crime to be a prohibited person, and if you so report that on a 4473, you haven't broken the law and have not incriminated yourself on the form. But if you lie about your status, you have committed a crime and can't be compelled in court to be a witness against yourself. You can't be compelled to verify that the signature on the form is yours. In the former case, however, you can be charged with the crime of attempting to buy a gun while you are a prohibited person.

However, being compelled to fill out the form in order to buy a gun in the first place is a violation of the Second Amendment. Government has infringed your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Woody

 

[22-rimfire]

Very difficult to prove something that did not happen. That's why the law is kind of a feel good kind of thing. But it certainly is a convenient way to track total firearm sales in the country from FFL dealers.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

But it certainly is a convenient way to track total firearm sales in the country from FFL dealers.

There is an easier way. Just total up the number of guns each manufacturer has sold to the commercial market. And, it wouldn't violate anyone's rights. 'Course, I can't think of a valid reason government would need to know this info, nor can I find a power granted to the government to conduct such a census.

Woody

 

[bigalexe]

No background check, No Flylist Entry, or even abstinence only program can be PROVEN to have "Prevented" something from happening.

In order to prove that a background check "Prevented" a crime you basically would have to have a situation where a potential bad guy walks into a gun store and gets denied then before leaving says "Ah probably it's good I got denied because I was gonna go shoot my wife."

No I do not believe background checks have "Prevented" crimes alone.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!

In my opinion if you are a convicted violent criminal then you have forfeited your rights by violating the law and in this case a Criminal Background check is something I agree with. If someone is repeatedly convicted of assault (with or w/o deadly weapon) crimes then they should not be handed firearms. Unfortunately the only way to reliably prevent convicted criminals from obtaining firearms is criminal background checks, or permanent forehead tattoos which state they can't buy firearms.