Have Background Checks Ever Prevented a Crime?

[Maturin]

For what it's worth in anectodal evidence weight, the last time I filled out the form, I jokingly asked the counter guy whether anyone ever checked yes to some of the more obvious boxes -- getting put in the booby hatch, etc.

And he said, yes, he's had people check those boxes... and then get politely told they wouldn't be buying a handgun from him.

 

[TexasRifleman]

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.

This doesn't pass the smell test however since it's documented that DoJ only prosecutes less than 1% of these criminal acts of prohibited persons attempting to buy guns. The way to protect sellers is to throw law breakers in jail so they cannot attempt to buy guns, but that doesn't happen.

Why not?

It was already illegal for prohibited persons to purchase guns, since 1968. This doesn't really protect the sellers since no one is being prosecuted for the illegal attempted purchases.

 

[Officers'Wife]

There is no way to tell, really. There are no statistics that back up the assertion.

You need to remember that most federal laws are enacted to show the people that Congress is doing something. Whether the law is effective or not has no relevance as long as it addresses the question of the moment.

Case in point- during the depression a number of famous (or infamous) personalities committed crimes while carrying full auto weapons. Congress finally passed a law demanding all full auto weapons be subject to tax to show the starving poor the fed was serious about crime. The fact that most of the weapons used by the gangsters were stolen from police and military had no bearing.

 

[Tilos]

4473

I had a dirtbag try to snatch a 4473 form back from me after I called it in and was denied.

Lying on the form and signing it, by a convicted felon, is a crime.

Not sure whatever happened to him, nothing that further involved me though.

Just sayin'
Tilos

 

[brboyer]

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.

Here we go again.

A simple NICS background check for buyers is a fairly minimal thing.

Unconstitutional, but that's OK, it's minimal and it really doesn't accomplish anything anyway, right?

The point is to make it illegal for prohibited persons to purchase firearms.

Uh, no the NICS checks don't do that, the unconstitutional federal law does.

Since sales to such persons is illegal, sellers have to protect themselves and the current system allows [that's funny right there] for that.

No, the FFLs have to do it because we have allowed the Federal government to pass unconstitutional laws, and these dealers don't want to go to prison.

 

[Domineaux]

The letter from John D. Dingell to Janet Reno questioning the DOJ's prosecution rate of federal firearm felons back in 2000 shown entirely at the following URL reflects very clearly the utter failure of the NICS system to make a difference.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=239843


Excerpt:

"I want to know why, when the law clearly states it is a federal felony to falsify
information on a firearm transfer application, the Justice Department has chosen
not to prosecute these offenders," Dingell said. "In 1999, 86 percent of the people
rejected by National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) had lied
on their application and are thereby punishable by law, yet less than 1 percent
were prosecuted. NICS is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down
on gun criminals and prevent crime, but it only works if we use it."

 

[wishin]

That's kind of like asking how many more drug adicts we'd have if MJ and other narcotics were legalized, and would drug related crimes decrease. Alas, another discussion for another forum.

 

[USMC MSGT]

I really do not see it stopping anything. If an individual that prohibited from owning a gun wants one bad enough they will either buy it from a private sale or have someone that is not prohibited from owning a gun buy it for them.

By the way...the questions on the form are stupid anyway. Who were the smart guys that came up with the questions?
Example:
"Are you a fugitive from justice?" If you are and you can read you are probably smart enough not to answer that question truthfully.

 

[Echo9]

I really do not see it stopping anything. If an individual that prohibited from owning a gun wants one bad enough they will either buy it from a private sale or have someone that is not prohibited from owning a gun buy it for them.

By the way...the questions on the form are stupid anyway. Who were the smart guys that came up with the questions?
Example:
"Are you a fugitive from justice?" If you are and you can read you are probably smart enough not to answer that question truthfully.

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.

Same with the pretty much all the rest of the questions. If you've done time for beating up your wife, but lie and say that "no," you've never had a domestic violence conviction, you're still not getting that gun.

As I understand it, the only think lying on the form accomplishes is making you guilty of perjury.

 

[shockwave]

Here we go again.

Yep. A huge contingent here are slavering over the right for violent sexual predators, convicted drug fiends, and known terrorists to buy guns legally. Power to you. But last I checked, guns are pretty expensive and we don't generally buy 5 or 10 a day. In fact, I tend to buy around 1 or 2 every decade. The laws in place don't prevent me from doing that and they haven't stopped me from getting the exact guns I want. My home arsenal is solid and I've got all the ammo I'd need from here to eternity. So what's the problem? You want the sexual predator next door to get easy access to firepower? Why?

 

[TexasRifleman]

The laws in place don't prevent me from doing that and they haven't stopped me from getting the exact guns I want.

I can't believe you actually said all that with a straight face.

 

[brboyer]

Here is some interesting information I culled from the FBI 2007 NICS Operations Report.

They are a little sneaky on how they present the data, but that should not surprise anyone.

[SIZE="2"]
2007 NICS Transactions

5,136,883 Total

3,801,293 (74%) Received an immediate 'Proceed'
1,335,590 (26%) Were transfered to NICS section for additional deterinimation

  921,557 (69%) Of these transfers, received an immediate 'Proceed'
  414,033 (31%) Were delayed for research

  134,000 (~32%) Of those delayed, did not get final proceed/deny within 72 hours
                              TRANSFER CAN STILL TAKE PLACE
  214,000 (~52%) Of those delayed, received a 'Proceed' within 72 hours
   66,817 (~16%) Of those delayed, received a 'Deny'
   
   16,500 (~25%) Of those denied, were overturned on appeal
                (These are conviently left out of FBI's totals and percentages)


   50,317 (Less than 1%) Ulitmate Denial of Total Transactions[/SIZE]

 

[merlinfire]

Good googley moogely TexasRifleman. You should re-read that thread. A lot of what you have just said was what other people said about my statements, not the statements themselves. There's a difference between saying something might be a good idea, and lying about whether or not we can easily measure its effectiveness. And cut the schill crap. I'm as pro-gun as anyone here. I'm just not as paranoid as some.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well, you did say:

I'm not pro-gun control in the traditional sense

But the one that I think shows the flaw in your thinking is:

I do not believe in self defense for myself

That's fine, and you don't have to, but others do believe in self defense and they should be allowed that as well.

As shown here and in other places there are 2 big problems with the background checks as they exist today:

1) The law is not enforced when a prohibited person attempts to buy a gun. Less than 1% of the time is someone prosecuted. Which means, in all probability, that the prohibited person continues their search for a gun until they get one. All the background checks are doing then is moving the sale from one location to another. Adding more background checks won't help then, since they are not actually stopping a sale.

2) As shown a couple of posts above, it's law abiding citizens, many of whom desire a gun for self defense (and sometimes in a hurry; divorcing wives etc) who are being harmed more often. Law abiding citizens, when turned down by NICS, don't pursue other methods of getting a gun so they go without while they work through the system to get the appeals process going. That takes a long time. If you are not looking for a gun for self defense maybe you have time. If you do have an urgent need, and that does happen, the current system can cause serious problems.

So it does not appear that background checks keep prohibited persons from getting a gun if they really want one, and no one has shown any evidence to the contrary.

Like most laws, they only impact the law abiding. Here's an important concept of law Laws can't PREVENT anything by themselves, they PUNISH afterwards. If they do prevent someone from acting it's out of fear of the punishment, not fear of the law itself. But since there is no fear of punishment for breaking the current law about prohibited persons attempting to buy a gun, what deterrent effect do those laws have? None.....

 

[merlinfire]

Well, you did say:

Quote:
I'm not pro-gun control in the traditional sense
But the one that I think shows the flaw in your thinking is:

Quote:
I do not believe in self defense for myself
That's fine, and you don't have to, but others do believe in self defense and they should be allowed that as well.

As shown here and in other places there are 2 big problems with the background checks as they exist today:

1) The law is not enforced when a prohibited person attempts to buy a gun. Less than 1% of the time is someone prosecuted. Which means, in all probability, that the prohibited person continues their search for a gun until they get one. All the background checks are doing then is moving the sale from one location to another. Adding more background checks won't help then, since they are not actually stopping a sale.

2) As shown a couple of posts above, it's law abiding citizens, many of whom desire a gun for self defense (and sometimes in a hurry; divorcing wives etc) who are being harmed more often. Law abiding citizens, when turned down by NICS, don't pursue other methods of getting a gun so they go without while they work through the system to get the appeals process going. That takes a long time. If you are not looking for a gun for self defense maybe you have time. If you do have an urgent need, and that does happen, the current system can cause serious problems.

So it does not appear that background checks keep prohibited persons from getting a gun if they really want one, and no one has shown any evidence to the contrary.

Like most laws, they only impact the law abiding. Here's an important concept of law Laws can't PREVENT anything by themselves, they PUNISH afterwards. If they do prevent someone from acting it's out of fear of the punishment, not fear of the law itself. But since there is no fear of punishment for breaking the current law about prohibited persons attempting to buy a gun, what deterrent effect do those laws have? None.....

I want to start out by pointing out the fact that you quoted only part of that statement. The other part talked about how I don't support taking the right away for people to decide for themselves. I think it's unfair to try to take things out of context and misquote.

I understand the enforcement side of it. The reason why it's rarely prosecuted is that the primary purpose of the law has already been accomplished: the person was unable to purchase a gun. As stated before there's no way to measure the law's true effectiveness, and there is the same amount of evidence for, as against (precisely none, as far as accurate or complete evidence goes). I have heard of people getting false positives on the NICS, and I think that's a problem. The system should definitely be improved.

I just want to point out one thing regarding this debate, and feel free to quote me. There is the same amount of evidence against the NICS as there is for it. None, at least, that can be regarded as a complete picture of the facts. The Brady Campaign, i'm sure, has it's numbers (no doubt greatly inflated), while the 2A crowd or the NRA has its numbers, which based on what I've seen on these boards hover at precisely 0 - words like "never" being used. I expect it's somewhere in between. Nowhere near what the anti-gun crowd would like to think, nor as minute at the 2A crowd would like to believe. And no doubt there ARE problems, which need to be resolved. But as many guns as I've bought (and as many as my brother in laws have bought) and none of us ever getting the false positive on the NICS, it seems to me that issue would be somewhat rare. Heck, my dad is a 2 or 3 time convicted felon, and I've never got a false positive, despite having the same name. I can only guess this happens due to identity theft with SS#'s. That can be a sticky situation whether or not guns are involved.

I'm just pointing out that since we can't measure it, it's all so much hot air to debate it. As some previous poster pointed out, it's a matter of feelings and opinions. My hope is that this DOES work, not that it has no effect. Because every criminal that is prevented from buying a gun legally, even if he is able to buy one illegally later, is slowed down and his resources stretched. If that means he can commit fewer gun-related crimes, that means the Brady campaign will have less "ammunition" to throw into the debate. I for one think that is a good thing.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I want to start out by pointing out the fact that you quoted only part of that statement. The other part talked about how I don't support taking the right away for people to decide for themselves. I think it's unfair to try to take things out of context and misquote.

I don't mean to take them out of context, I mean to show that perspective is important. Since self defense isn't your thing maybe you don't understand how much impact it can have on someone who needs a gun for self defense, and sometimes in a big hurry.

The reason why it's rarely prosecuted is that the primary purpose of the law has already been accomplished: the person was unable to purchase a gun.

That's not true. Prohibited persons buy guns all the time, just through other methods. If prohibited persons never bought guns the gun crime rate would trend down, so clearly they are not "unable" to purchase a gun. There are attorney general reports that explain the real reason the law is not being enforced, it's because it costs money. Janet Reno said that very clearly when she was AG. They simply didn't, and don't, want to spend the money on enforcing the law.

Because every criminal that is prevented from buying a gun legally, even if he is able to buy one illegally later, is slowed down and his resources stretched.

Well no, that's not true either if you will do a little research. Stolen and used guns often bring much lower prices than new guns. Stolen guns especially sell at very low prices on the street compared to retail prices.

You are telling this story from the "gut feeling" side, and I agree that what you say SEEMS like it would make sense, but the facts just don't agree with it.

So which do we go with, facts or feelings? It seems like more people are comfortable with feelings than facts, and that's the real shame of this.

 

[CoRoMo]

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.

You realize that the bill that initiated background checks, was named the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act? Maybe you didn't, but now you know what that bill was sold as.

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.

None of this makes sense. Passage of the BHVP Act didn't "make it illegal for prohibited persons to purchase firearms". GCA '68 did that. Also, the implementation of background checks doesn't "protect" sellers. You might be thinking of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of '05, but nowhere in BHVP does it extend statutory immunity to the seller.

I know you embrace these measures and would even like to see the line moved further against the heart of liberty, but it doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.

 

[Domineaux]

I personally don't see why so many are up in arms against background checks.

When it comes down to it, I think that the current nearly instant system is a good preventative measure without much hassle for most people and our constitutional rights are not guaranteed as "perfectly easy" but as "without unreasonable inconvenience".
If I want to take advantage of my freedom of speech in some ways, I must obtain a permit or license just as taking advantage of my rkba sometimes requires passing a check or obtaining a permit.

My only real complaints about the system is that mistakes seem to occur more often than they should (gov records should be pretty clear on whether or not I have any felonies, am a legal citizen, etc...and the failure of clarity should certainly make us question the IRS) and that the DOJ needs to get off their lazy duffs and prosecute felonious violations of the NICS.

 

[One-Time]

The background deal does NOTHING to prevent criminals from getting guns, many just have friends etc buy them or they steal them

Laws only effect the law abiding, No law has EVER stopped a criminal

 

[rainbowbob]

I'm just pointing out that since we can't measure it, it's all so much hot air to debate it.

Merlinfire: You see what you said there? Perhaps go back and read it again.

You clearly and succinctly make the PERFECT argument for rescinding the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

If the effects (after years of implementation) cannot be measured - there is absolutely NO rationale for infringing the rights of the law abiding.

Such laws should be enacted ONLY if there is a clearly defined and significant net positive effect on public safety.

You correctly point out there is no such evidence. Thus I expect that either you agree the law should be rescinded - or you are in favor of laws that infringe our rights while producing no public good.

 

[Domineaux]

Merlinfire: You see what you said there? Perhaps go back and read it again.

You clearly and succinctly make the PERFECT argument for rescinding the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

If the effects (after years of implementation) cannot be measured - there is absolutely NO rationale for infringing the rights of the law abiding.

Such laws should be enacted ONLY if there is a clearly defined and significant net positive effect on public safety.

You correctly point out there is no such evidence. Thus I expect that either you agree the law should be rescinded - or you are in favor of laws that infringe our rights while producing no public good.

Good point, we should only concede even slight infringements if an absolute and visible positive impact is achieved. Otherwise no infringement should be tolerated or allowed.

 

[ArmedBear]

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.

 

[shockwave]

I know you embrace these measures and would even like to see the line moved further

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.

 

[CoRoMo]

Nope, I don't know you. I'm just going off of the things you post on this site. The exchange of liberty for perceived security is very funny indeed.

 

[ArmedBear]

He has to commit a crime to get his weapon

Yeah. Like buy it from a guy who is supplied by a gang of professionals who break into your house, duct-tape your family, then shoot one after another in the back of the head, so that they can get your guns and sell them for a good amount of cash.

That's my point.

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.

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.

Statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstats/underage_drinking.htm

45% of American high school students have had alcohol within the past month. 11% of all the alcohol in the US is consumed by people from age 12 to 20. All the effort and expense, the undercover ABC types at bars and stores, the bartenders convicted of felonies for selling beer to a 20-year-old in a crowded bar, and does it prevent, or even apparently discourage, high school kids from drinking? Nope.