Thread: 40% of guns are sold without background checks

been saying this in my arguments with people in person for months... and they do not believe me for the MEDIA will not call him on this for they are part of the agenda to take guns .....

We have known for a while that this "40% of guns are sold without background checks" is nonsense. But that is no longer the real problem, the fight has moved on to a more fundamental issue. There is a clear line in the sand between those of us that believe we are better off being an armed society and those that respond emotionally by taking away guns from good people in the false hope bad people stay home. I will agree the best way for Democrats to advance their position is to ensure some sort of movement right after a tragic event, and then move onto false information. It will only get worse since we have already seen the tactic of trying to make the public feel guilty for having rights that others act irresponsible with. This will end up being a campaign issue headed into the House elections in just 2 short years, odds are little will get done between now and then outside of Executive Order.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Sorry, but wrong:



Now, I have no issue with requiring background checks for all transfers. I've advocated that here for years, and taken a lot of flak for it. But the fact is that the President is using false information to advance his agenda, and while that should be of concern to everyone, his supporters here will be unlikely to even admit that the data is bad.

Unfortunately, the radically anti-gun wing of the Democratic party have found a useful tool in the President. Feinstein, Schumer and the like have been trying to institute bans and more bans for almost a decade, but they have not found a crisis to exploit, and a President who holds gun owners in contempt. Not a good combination, at least not for anyone who believes that rights should not be capriciously infringed.

But, but, but, Danny said that Bloomberg said that 40% was true.

Bloomberg would never lie to further his agenda.

It's for the childrennnnnnnnnnn!!!




The first casualty of war is the truth, and since the gun grabbers are waging a war of sorts to deny our rights to own firearms, the first thing that they will do is lie to the masses to try and further their agenda.

All of liberalism is based on a lie.

Maybe this should be Politifact's lie of the year. Nah, he's a Democrat.

Has it been difinitively established that "the 40% claim" is directly and specifically tied to the study that the author is discrediting?

I mean, it's possible that there are two (or more) studies that make "the 40% claim" and that this author, who is clearly a biased advocate for "More Guns, Less Crime" just kinda hit on one that relied on shitty science, picked it apart, and then threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Note that I'm not necessarially claiming that this is what the guy did.

I also accept the possibility that he's 100% on the money.

But I'd like to know for sure.

I note in reading that Wikipedia page that the science behind John Lott's book is called into question in much the same way he attacks "the 40% study" and that quite a few studies and publications refute the results of his work, or offer alternative views on the subject.

If you read this article: Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis, you'll find that Lott is accused of parlaying his shoddy work (which is completly discredited over the course of the paper) into a career as something of a celebrity expert wittness for gun advocacy causes.

Now, I don't want to "shoot the messenger" here out of hand.

Even if the guy is a fraud and a shill in other respects it's certainly possible that the accusations he makes in the NRO article are 100% accurate.

But with his credibility at a discount, as it were, I'd like to see some solid evidence here before I just accept what he has to say on faith.

I don't think his record earns him the trust he presumes he has (and which y'all are falling all over each other to bestow upon him).

Originally Posted by soot

Has it been difinitively established that "the 40% claim" is directly and specifically tied to the study that the author is discrediting?

I mean, it's possible that there are two (or more) studies that make "the 40% claim" and that this author, who is clearly a biased advocate for "More Guns, Less Crime" just kinda hit on one that relied on shitty science, picked it apart, and then threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Note that I'm not necessarially claiming that this is what the guy did.

I also accept the possibility that he's 100% on the money.

But I'd like to know for sure.

I note in reading that Wikipedia page that the science behind John Lott's book is called into question in much the same way he attacks "the 40% study" and that quite a few studies and publications refute the results of his work, or offer alternative views on the subject.

If you read this article: Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis, you'll find that Lott is accused of parlaying his shoddy work (which is completly discredited over the course of the paper) into a career as something of a celebrity expert wittness for gun advocacy causes.

Now, I don't want to "shoot the messenger" here out of hand.

Even if the guy is a fraud and a shill in other respects it's certainly possible that the accusations he makes in the NRO article are 100% accurate.

But with his credibility at a discount, as it were, I'd like to see some solid evidence here before I just accept what he has to say on faith.

I don't think his record earns him the trust he presumes he has (and which y'all are falling all over each other to bestow upon him).

All of that aside, do you have any idea how implausible that 40% number is?

Just think of how many WalMarts there are in this country, and then think of how many guns they sell.

When the average suburbanite or city dweller goes to buy a weapon, it's from a mass retailer or a gun store.

There is simply no way that 2 out of every 5 guns sold happens without a background check.

Originally Posted by smurf

There is simply no way that 2 out of every 5 guns sold happens without a background check.

That's an assumption, not a fact.

It's true that about 2 out of every 3 cars sold in the United States every year is a used car.

Given that I don't see why it would be impossible that a hefty percentage of guns sold in the United States every year are used gun.

Since there are no background checks required for face to face transfer of most firearms between most residents of most states (or between residents of contiguous states, if I'm not mistaken) I don't think that it's all that unreasonable that a large percentage of guns bought and sold in America every year are transfered without background checks.

I know plenty of folks who have bought guns face to face without background checks being involved.

I suspect that you do too, maybe even done it yourself.

I haven't because I live in the PRNJ but if we didn't have such oppressive gun laws here I suspect I would, both buy and sell, without going through a dealer.

I think you're applying different standards to the transfer of guns than seem to appply to the transfer of most other durable goods.

How many of the mass killings that is driving this newest gun control push were done by people who bought guns without background checks? Of course I assume that most of the killings that go on in places like chicago are with stolen guns and not legal guns.

Oh, and I thought I'd answer my own question, above.

I did a little digging and according to the WaPo, at least, the White House has claimed that it is using the study in the OP as a resource:

The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks - The Washington Post

Apparently, however, the guys who did the original study based on 1994 data sets also did another, larger, study in 1996 and reached the conclusion that somewhere between 30% and 40% of guns are transfered without background checks.

So at the low range we're looking at 30% instead of 40%.

Personally I suspect that's still a bit too high and would expect to find a larger study coming in at 25% to 30%.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

How many of the mass killings that is driving this newest gun control push were done by people who bought guns without background checks? Of course I assume that most of the killings that go on in places like chicago are with stolen guns and not legal guns.

Do killings only count if they're commited in masses?

Honest question.

I understand what you're saying, and sure the sensationalisim of mass killings gets peoples' attention and folks who would be oblivious to deaths by ones and twos stand up and take notice of sensational events.

But if we looked at all gun crrimes commited in the U.S. every year, rather than just murders or mass murders, I'd expect that the large majority are commited using guns transfered without a background check (either legally or illegally).

I'd have a very difficult time believing, given the number of gun crimes commited in the United States every year, that all or even most are commited with stolen guns or guns smuggled in from Mexico.

Originally Posted by soot

Do killings only count if they're commited in masses?

Honest question.

I understand what you're saying, and sure the sensationalisim of mass killings gets peoples' attention and folks who would be oblivious to deaths by ones and twos stand up and take notice of sensational events.

But if we looked at all gun crrimes commited in the U.S. every year, rather than just murders or mass murders, I'd expect that the large majority are commited using guns transfered without a background check (either legally or illegally).

I'd have a very difficult time believing, given the number of gun crimes commited in the United States every year, that all or even most are commited with stolen guns or guns smuggled in from Mexico.

I don't have the stats, but I think that most murders are committed by people who do not legally own the gun used. That the people that legally buy guns with the background check are not in large part the people committing the murders.

I have bought several guns over the years from hunting buddies, from friends, and from family members. The people either bought the guns legally and new or they were bought from someone else, and not criminals. I doubt many of these guns end up being used in crimes.

We have a big problem in my area with thieves breaking into houses while the owners are at work. They always take guns and around here they steal hordes of them. My son n law lost perhaps 8 guns this last year. Shot guns, deer rifles, 22 rifles and a couple expensive pistols. These breakins are more prolific these days but have gone on around here since the 1980s. These guns are sold to other criminals, because if sold at a pawn shop they would be caught. They are hot guns with serial numbers in the system.

Of course some of these mass shootings were with guns owned by the parents and their kids used them. But it just seems to me that a more detailed background check is like pissing into the wind. It solves nothings and makes it harder on the guy taking a leak.

Originally Posted by soot

That's an assumption, not a fact.

It's true that about 2 out of every 3 cars sold in the United States every year is a used car.

Given that I don't see why it would be impossible that a hefty percentage of guns sold in the United States every year are used gun.

Since there are no background checks required for face to face transfer of most firearms between most residents of most states (or between residents of contiguous states, if I'm not mistaken) I don't think that it's all that unreasonable that a large percentage of guns bought and sold in America every year are transfered without background checks.

I know plenty of folks who have bought guns face to face without background checks being involved.

I suspect that you do too, maybe even done it yourself.

I haven't because I live in the PRNJ but if we didn't have such oppressive gun laws here I suspect I would, both buy and sell, without going through a dealer.

I think you're applying different standards to the transfer of guns than seem to appply to the transfer of most other durable goods.

I suspect that most used cars are sold from some kind of dealer and only a small % are from the owner. Just because something is used doesn't mean it's face-to-face.