Brady Campaign: Opposing Gun Background Checks Helps Abusers And Felons
Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence told me how important it is to pass H.R. 1217 to expand background checks to the 40% of gun sales that aren’t covered. However, the Republican congress won’t even bring it to the floor for a vote.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
78 responses to Brady Campaign: Opposing Gun Background Checks Helps Abusers And Felons
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tracey marie July 30th, 2015 at 10:07
They are afraid of losing the vote and the ammosexual voters but most importantly the NRA dollars of corruption.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 00:35
Care to refute this ammosexual’s argument, then?
jasperjava July 31st, 2015 at 02:15
George Washington never said those things. These “quotes” were manufactured by modern-day conservatives putting words into his mouth to give an imprimatur of authority to their modern right-wing ideas.
It is a shameful practice that is all too common among conservatives today. It’s a form of grave-robbing, besmirching the reputation of revolutionary heroes by making them say things they never said or ever would say.
As Abraham Lincoln said, “you can’t believe everything you read on the internet”.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 02:32
Feel free to actually provide citation to your claims. I’ll wait.
jasperjava July 31st, 2015 at 02:40
Typical Reich-wing tactic. Make unsourced claims, and then insist that others prove a negative.
You probably are not bright or educated enough to realize that the burden of proof is actually on you.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 03:46
Welp, I’m gonna go ahead and delete my post, because I did your refutation legwork for you, and it turns out he didn’t say those words (at least he was never recorded saying that). The truth should always come first.
That said, for one who seems so well versed with the argument pyramid , you might want to check your self, as you actually didn’t refute it yourself, AND you resorted to name calling.
jasperjava July 31st, 2015 at 11:03
Let this be a lesson to you: whenever a right-winger produces a “quote” from the Founding Fathers that too-perfectly reflects their own beliefs, you can be almost 100% sure that it’s a fake quote.
I’m glad that you took it down and that I could contribute to your education.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 21:43
Wonderful. You still have a long way to go to get from identifying a false quote, to making whomever actually said it incorrect.
But it’s actually kind of funny. My family never owned a gun when I was growing up. Now I have an assault rifle (with several 50-round magazines, a semi-auto shotgun, and a revolver, and it all happened simply because people kept pushing for guns to be banned.
Even if your successful, which you might be some day, it really won’t matter. Presuming a civil war doesn’t start over it, people will just hide their guns, and it isn’t like the government will have a constant right to invade my privacy looking for them whenever you want. You know the logic people use for sanctuary cities? People with guns will simply become introverts, not letting strangers in their house. A 5 year old child could be crawling to my house after a car accident, and I would not open the door to save his life. And before you call me a monster, remember the reasons for justifying sanctuary cities: Illegal immigrants would not stick around to talk to the police about crimes due to the fear of being deported. When you threaten someone’s way of life with prison or deportation, they will tend to take the more selfish route.
jasperjava August 1st, 2015 at 21:52
You only bought guns because you thought (erroneously) that they might get banned??? You’re the very definition of pathetic. It’s precisely people like you who ought not to own guns, because you’re incapable of rational thought.
And yes, you are a monster for refusing to help an injured child. I don’t even WANT to understand your sick rationalization of it.
You come across as a very creepy person, probably sociopathic. I am serious. This is not meant to be a putdown or an ad hominem attack. I am genuinely concerned that you may be a danger to yourself or others. If you have even a shred of self-awareness left, I seriously think you ought to seek help.
TuMadre, Ph.D August 1st, 2015 at 22:14
I’m glad that you think you are able to do such a good job diagnosing someone over the internet. That said, I’m plenty fine without your diagnosis. I would even go so far as to say that I’m happy most of the time.
Anyways, as I’ve said before, the entire reason there are sanctuary cities is due to the fact that when one’s way of life is threatened, EVERYBODY tends to shy away from the public. The solution to this, of course, is to not threaten someone’s way of life. But then, of course, the one’s who worship the authority of Big Brother are probably more than happy to give up all their personal freedom for the thought of safety (until a cop kills a person who happens to have darker skin. Then it’s, “The cops are systematically racist, and we need to do something about this horrid, horrid problem!”)
jasperjava August 2nd, 2015 at 00:18
You have no problem with police killing people then, as long as their skin is a darker shade than yours.
Typical sociopathic conservative.
TuMadre, Ph.D August 2nd, 2015 at 00:34
Way to twist my words. I’m not the one wanting the police to be everyone’s protector, and take away the means for people to protect themselves.
jasperjava August 2nd, 2015 at 01:14
You mock people who are concerned about police brutality and their tendency to shoot unarmed black people. I guess you can’t be too broken up about it.
White supremacy is one of the basic building blocks of conservative ideology.
TuMadre, Ph.D August 2nd, 2015 at 01:31
No, I mock people who contradict themselves when they have committed themselves to two opposing ideas.
1. People don’t need guns because the police can do it for you (ignoring a 160 year old Supreme Court edict that states the government and its agencies have no duty to protect its citizens, which was reaffirmed in 1981, holding that the state is only responsible when a special relationship exists, such as custody).
2. The police (a government agency) are corrupt and racist, and will oppress people due to their skin color.
Holding these two thoughts together is a contradiction. You say the police are corrupt and racist. Fine. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t rely on them for protection.
You want to take away people’s right to bare arms. Fine, but then that means you find how the police operate today to be acceptable.
Logic always reigns February 26th, 2016 at 18:37
Relax, NRA favorables according to Gallup are 58%
Tommie July 30th, 2015 at 10:32
Real nice, there is a proposal that will possibly help keep guns out of undesirables hands and the Republican congress do not even want to bring it to the floor for a vote! Hmmmm, wonder why? I think Tracey Marie has the answer! No wonder congress approval numbers are so low!
rawstory July 30th, 2015 at 13:03
It’s a scheme for complete registration of law abiding gun owners…
this will do nothing to stop crime.
Suzanne McFly July 30th, 2015 at 15:37
Try using some facts before coming to a conclusion, research will not sprain any of your muscles.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118286/facts-about-gun-control-and-universal-background-checks
http://www.joycefdn.org/gunviolencemyths/
rawstory July 30th, 2015 at 16:06
How will you make a criminal take a background check??
It’s nothing more than a registration scheme….
Suzanne McFly July 30th, 2015 at 17:15
What the hell are you mumbling about? You don’t make anyone take a background check, you run one on someone before you sell them a gun, They pass it, they get the gun, they don’t pass, they don’t get the gun. You barely have to have a braincell to figure that out.
rawstory July 30th, 2015 at 17:24
Think about this s l o w l y…
how do you make criminals take a background check?
Why don’t you just open up the NICS check line to ANY seller so they can call it in as an option? Makes it much easier that way…
Suzanne McFly July 30th, 2015 at 19:03
I explained it to you twice and wasted 5 minutes of my valuable time on trying to show you how to educate yourself. You seem to just miss the entire point and I am done replying to an empty vessel.
rawstory July 30th, 2015 at 19:47
But when I point out the loopholes in your “explanation” you just bury your head in the sand and ignore it….
tracey marie July 30th, 2015 at 22:29
bunker time and tin foil hats for you.
rawstory July 30th, 2015 at 22:46
another ad hominem…SOP for gun grabbers when they are confronted with facts..
tracey marie July 30th, 2015 at 23:09
go hid in your bunker ammosexual.
Hugo Stiglitz July 30th, 2015 at 23:12
Why don’t you actually counter their argument instead of attacking them?
tracey marie July 30th, 2015 at 23:18
what argument, conpsiracies are to be laughed at
Hugo Stiglitz July 30th, 2015 at 23:39
What conspiracy are you referring to?
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 00:34
She’s referring to the conspiracy that a government could ever go tyrannical. One, I actually “what-if’ed” a scenario that led to one of the two parties becoming tyrannical and trying to kill or expel all minorities from our nation’s borders. She thought the example was “ludicrous,” despite the fact that the Greek New Dawn party is trying to do that, and the fact that the Nazi’s actually DID do that.
Governments go tyrannical all the time, and so long as governments continue to have the possibility of going tyrannical, the citizenry has a right to arm itself so that it has the power to overthrow such a government if and when tyranny arises.
jasperjava July 31st, 2015 at 02:06
The Nazis were not overthrown by toothless ammosexual redneck goobers with pea-shooters. They were overthrown by well-organized governments using massive government programs, financed by enormous deficit spending, marshalling incredible resources of human labor and talent, as well as materials and technology. They were inspired by the best traditions of liberalism in the service of liberty and democracy.
The type of people who screech about guvmint tyranny these days tend to be ultra-conservative authoritarian fascists who hate anyone who doesn’t look like them, think like them, or worship like them. They are closer in ideology and temperament to the Nazis than to the great democracies that defeated them. They are often the worst bigots and racists, wife-beating misogynists, anti-gay religious fanatical theocrats.
I don’t trust uneducated conservatives to know what tyranny is. To them, “tyranny” is any government that isn’t white supremacist and economically feudal. Any government that treats women as equals, or treats racial, religious and sexual minorities fairly is “tyrannical”. They themselves would use the power of the gun to set themselves up as tyrants. Luckily our liberal democracy can easily defend itself from these rabid gun freaks and their “Second Amendment Solutions”.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 02:28
You realize that the Nazi’s disarmed their own citizenry, right?
Yes. The founding fathers were all ultra-conservative authoritarian fascists who hated everyone who didn’t look like them (explaining all of Andrew Jackson’s illegitimate children), think like them (which is why they included the freedom of speech and didn’t make an exception for hate speech), or worship like them (which is why they allowed freedom of religion.
You’re using a weasel word with “They tend to be.” Provide facts that the majority of conservatives are what you say they are (saying that the majority of wife beaters tend to be conservative does NOT mean that the majority of conservatives tend to be wife beaters), or your statement means exactly as much (and is exactly as bad) as someone else saying, “Black people tend to be thieves.”
“I don’t trust uneducated conservatives to know what tyranny is.”
You don’t have to. You still don’t have the right to take away guns. I don’t need my government to be white supremacist, although I do believe in personal fiscal responsibility (excepting universal goods such as electricity, water, roads, military defense), which also means no wealth redistribution for people OR for corporations.
“Any government that treats women as equals, or treats racial, religious, and sexual minorities fairly is “tyrannical.”
I do believe that the current hiring/college quotas put in place have a tendency to elevate “oppressed classes” based on their race or sexuality, rather than their actual merit (which is why nobody asks about the qualification of white, straight men, and people ask if a quota was the reason a black, lesbian woman was hired). Also, I don’t see too many people concerned about male rights, which makes me believe that people actually want female supremacy, not equality (feel free to take a look at the two images below to get some idea about what I’m saying).
And if your liberal democracy can defend itself from “these rabid gun freaks,” as you so call them, then there is no reason to talk about restricting gun ownership. After all, the democracy does not have the votes to repeal the second amendment outright, and they are nowhere near the votes needed to repeal it.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0dd789219e62fa23871784a63e3349ecbcfc03d78b5e92deb242acef242c4b0d.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a7c3d852afc6a0f41dfce5426b42000e32a1fb46f7016515745da9381adb8c31.png
jasperjava July 31st, 2015 at 03:10
Lots of ignorance and misinformation to unpack here.
First of all, the Nazis did NOT disarm their citizenry. Another myth concocted by the Second Amendment fanatics.
YOU are the one accusing the Founding Fathers of being authoritarian fascists. I specifically said “THESE DAYS”. In the days of absolute monarchy, it was legitimate to oppose government tyranny. But look at the type of tinfoil-hat morons who complain about guvmint tyranny these days: ignorant right-wing slobs who caress their phallic guns in their mother’s basements. They’re not interested in bringing about change through the ballot box (the great legacy of the American Revolution). No, they fantasize about “taking their country back” and assassinating the first African-american president.
I never said that the “majority” of conservatives are wife beaters, etc. That’s a dishonest reading. I am specifically talking about the extremists who want to overthrow the democratically-elected government of the people, and set themselves up as the tyrants, imposing their will at gunpoint.
“nobody asks about the qualification of white, straight men, and people ask if a quota was the reason a black, lesbian woman was hired”
It’s amazing to me that you don’t see the inherent racism, sexism, and heterosexism of your assumptions.
White straight men are the beneficiaries of centuries of unearned privilege. Definitely their qualifications should be questioned. How did a low-watt bulb like George W. B*$h ever supposedly become the so-called “president” of the United States? How did a morally-impaired man like Dick Cheney get so much power? How did a crass vulgar buffoon like Donald Trump ever gain so much money and influence? How did a pair of evil snakes like the Koch brothers ever come into a position where they threaten to destroy our democracy?
If anybody ever benefited from affirmative action, it’s rich white males.
sailor July 30th, 2015 at 21:58
The point they make is valid…
tracey marie July 30th, 2015 at 22:30
what point and who is them?
sailor July 30th, 2015 at 22:32
The other poster and the point that background checks don’t affect criminals.
Suzanne McFly July 31st, 2015 at 09:40
I won’t enter this conversation, I tell them why background checks are a valid way to make sure you don’t sell a weapon to a criminal and they just claim a criminal won’t comply. How do you argue with that?
tracey marie July 31st, 2015 at 11:45
Just keep asking questions, they either run away or start with misogynist or racist comments. They make me laugh.
You just say Bingo... July 31st, 2015 at 12:37
I think the point they were making is that the background checks have no effect on criminals since they don’t legally have to take a check…
Suzanne McFly July 31st, 2015 at 16:30
That is the loophole they are trying to close.
You just say Bingo... July 31st, 2015 at 16:39
You can’t close the 5th Amendment…
Suzanne McFly July 31st, 2015 at 17:21
What the hell are you talking about now? What does the 5th Ammendment have to do with anything? You run a background check on someone else and if they don’t pass it you don’t give them the gun. You don’t do your own background check when you purchase a gun from a gun dealer, they do it on you.
You just say Bingo... July 31st, 2015 at 17:32
I understand how it works completely…
A criminal cannot be charged with not doing a background check as that violates his 5a rights.
Criminals will continue buying guns from other criminals or stealing them….
Bypassing the background check…as usual.
A much quicker fix would be to open up the NICS check to any SELLER and let them call it in on their own as an option.
Obama could do that with an EO tonight and no gun owners would complain.
Suzanne McFly July 31st, 2015 at 18:06
This is the last comment I am making, you are creating situations in your comments. I am talking about the sales that do not require background checks (ie. gun shows) and if we make it so they are now forced to perform background checks on people before they sell guns to. Yes, criminals will get guns just like they can get cars if they do not have licences, but we don’t quit requiring drivers to obtain licences.
You just say Bingo... July 31st, 2015 at 19:32
So you admit that background checks won’t stop criminals from getting guns.
Thanks…that was my point… Wasted effort on the wrong thing.
Suzanne McFly July 31st, 2015 at 20:48
Went right through your head, kind of like the breeze does.
You just say Bingo... July 31st, 2015 at 20:53
You are the one calling for something that you admit will not stop criminals…
the guns on the black market are there and under zero control and they will never be sold to someone who can pass a check. Your law won’t affect them and you can’t trace them or do anything about.
You need to think the whole thing through before leaping up and saying “if all guns sales have to go through background checks..criminals won’t get guns..”
at no point will one criminal tell another criminal..”sure I’ll sell you this gun..but first we got to run a check on you…”
lol
it’s always cash talks and it always will be…because they CANNOT be punished for NOT registering their gun sale…thanks to the 5A.
tracey marie July 30th, 2015 at 22:29
freak out now, run to wnd to get your next fright
rawstory July 30th, 2015 at 22:45
ad hominem…typical gungrabber response…
tracey marie July 30th, 2015 at 23:09
bunker time for you
tracey marie July 30th, 2015 at 22:28
run hide, the sky is falling…get in your bunker.
rawstory July 30th, 2015 at 22:44
So you can’t refute that..got it..
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 00:26
She can’t refute anything. She can only insult (and rather poorly).
bobby1122 August 1st, 2015 at 12:29
And the ILLEGAL murderers just keep on coming!!!!
Obewon July 31st, 2015 at 20:14
SCOTUS Heller requires gun registration fees paid in advance and that gun owners must pass annual background checks, and applicants must also satisfy any other state/D.C. local requirements or ammosexuals are denied the privilege to keep a gun at home. Special officer Heller has to annually pass the above, or he is not allowed to keep a gun at his home in D.C. per SCOTUS’ Heller ruling.
Logic always reigns February 26th, 2016 at 18:36
false
Obewon February 26th, 2016 at 20:00
SCOTUS proves you remain an ignorantly uninformed dissembler.
Exhibit A: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Trump is “Dumpf” following his illegal alien grandady Pimp’16~.
Logic always reigns February 26th, 2016 at 20:42
Except your quote says noting about my points at all!
Obewon February 26th, 2016 at 22:08
Your inability to comprehend SCOTUS as linked and summarized for you, is as ignorant as you trolling this dead thread from “7 months ago”.
Logic always reigns February 27th, 2016 at 11:05
yeah I can see you think gun suicide (2.3 of your number) are somehow worse than jumping in front of a train. you include one, and exclude the other.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 00:24
Yes, yes. People who are against gun restrictions are nothing more than ammosexuals. Just like the lunatic in the picture. If he were alive today, he would undoubtedly be on a watch list.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 31st, 2015 at 04:39
Direct quote, “6 February – 7 September 1942:
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.”
He most certainly disarmed conquered peoples; that is without question. And he had Jews register their firearms.
Germany was awash in guns after WW1. Many citizens continued to carry personal firearms.
More to the point, Hitler had widespread support and didn’t need to confiscate every weapon in Germany. German society was a populist police state: the Gestapo peered into everything…but Germans weren’t anywhere near ready to revolt against the government, armed or not. This was an acquiescent society that obeyed the law.
Would the Jews have been better off if they’d been armed? There’s no simple answer to that, either. At the outset German Jews went more or less peacefully to the camps. Resistance, armed or not, was out of the question. Family groups wanted to stay together and avoid trouble. In any case it would have been hard to take a concealed weapon into a camp, even if they had one. And once there, what would they have done with a handgun?
There is only one example of armed revolt against the guards in a death camp, at Sobibor. Inmates seized weapons, killed SS guards, and broke through the fence…into a mine field. Some survived and escaped.
The Warsaw Ghetto uprising showed what Jews could do when their fate was clear: they got hold of guns and stopped a Waffen SS detachment dead in its tracks for days, until reinforcements and armor could be brought up to level the ghetto. Some Jews escaped through the sewers.
Now you say that it is appropriate for people to resist a tyrannical monarchy across the ocean. Whatever your opinion on gun owners (where you seem to have no problem massing all of them into one borderline-retarded mentality), unless you can prove that the United States Government does not have the power to go tyrannical, either now, or literally ANY time in the future, any argument about gun banning is already lost. I maintain that such a thing is a possibility. As for the one’s who fancy themselves tyrants, an armed population, combined with the United States Military, as well as state, local, and federal police force, would stop that. HOWEVER, an entire armed population, moving as one, would not be stopped by the military or police force without setting that government up for annihilation (no tax base means the kings starve, and a military coup will come in short order).
“Definitely their qualifications should be questioned.” Not true. If a straight white man gets the job, you can rest assured that, shy of nepotism, he was the most qualified candidate, because if a woman or a man of a different skin color was on the same level, the company would rather choose to meet its EOE quota. There is no minimum hiring qualification for whites, nor is there one for males. And you trying to cherry pick a few successful white men would be like me trying to say that racism is dead, because Barrack Obama got elected president. You have to look at the rules and the statistics (just like the privilege list I attached, which does include sources) on my last post.
arc99 July 31st, 2015 at 11:37
Hitler did not disarm Aryan Germans, so your statement that Hitler disarmed the citizenry does not at all represent what really happened in Germany.
As far as the notion that Jewish shopkeepers bearing arms might have altered the outcome of the final solution, I would remind you that Hitler took Poland in 29 days. I was not personally present at those battles, but according to reliable sources, the Polish military was heavily armed.
Warman1138 July 31st, 2015 at 10:16
2 + 2= 4 No it doesn’t, how are you going to make criminals add like that, I have an analogy from a movie that disproves that, It’s not in the constitution, I don’t see it anywhere in the bible, It will do nothing to stop crime, It’s a scheme for registering non 2 + 2=4 believers etc.
greenfloyd July 31st, 2015 at 23:52
I thought that was a powerful interview Alan. I appreciate the way you and Mr. Gross identified and explained the major problem; 40% of guns sales do not get background checks, i.e. “Gun-show loophole.” And making it clear this Republican Congress is turning a blind-eye, ignoring the fix, H.R. 1217.
Gross’ brother, Matthew, was shot through the brain on February 23, 1997 in a terrorist attack by a lone Palestinian gunman seeking revenge for U.S. support of Israel. Matthew’s best friend was killed in the attack, which left the promising young musician with permanent brain damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Empire_State_Building_shooting
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/24/health/la-he-matthew-gross-20110124
You just say Bingo... August 1st, 2015 at 09:49
There is no “gun show loophole” but thanks anyways.
Moot point as criminals won’t do the background checks anyways.
greenfloyd August 1st, 2015 at 22:06
I keep hearing about it and it seems generally agreed 40% of gun sales in the legal market go unchecked!? But, I don’t care what it’s called, I beleive all sales need background checks plus passing a test to verify a buyer’s competency with any particular weapon.
I do agree the illegal market is huge and needs to be destroyed. Then gun control might actually be a big help in reducing violence in America.
You just say Bingo... August 1st, 2015 at 22:20
The illegal market will be unaffected by this as they won’t be doing any checks.
I think the most effective and quick thing that could be done to prevent guns going to criminals is to open up the NICE check line to ALL sellers…. with this option they can then call and find out if the buyer is legit. Then they will know for sure.
This could be done overnight by executive order and no pro gun people would have an issue with it.
greenfloyd August 1st, 2015 at 22:30
It appears we are in agreement, up to a point. I believe all transfers of ownership need to be checked and recorded.
You just say Bingo... August 1st, 2015 at 22:32
no..I am against registration.
It only affects the law abiding..not the criminals..
Canada had a registration scheme…it solved no crimes… therefore it has no purpose…and they scrapped most of it.
greenfloyd August 1st, 2015 at 22:56
Registration, background checks, and showing competency with a weapon are crime and accident prevention.
I don’t know for Canada, a much smaller and peaceful country! Any comparisons would seem to pale considering the number of deaths and injuries in the U.S.
You just say Bingo... August 1st, 2015 at 23:11
Sorry…not going to happen…again..it only applies to law abiding. it has no effect on crime.
I will not be registering..to easy to confiscate once its known who owns what.
greenfloyd August 2nd, 2015 at 00:05
In order to remain “law abiding,” I suggest you comply with the law of the land. You can do non-violent civil disobedience, challenge it in courts or run for office, but no man is above the law.
I also appreciate your apparent distrust of politicians. This current environment has produced a kind of collective trauma, public insecurity. It has the potential to produce reactionary, perhaps even unconstitutional measures… if history is any judge.
Gun confiscation would never work. As with drugs, if we turn millions of Americans into criminals for non-criminal behavior, we will continue our descent into lawlessness.
Considering the obvious connection between illegal drugs, guns and violence, especially in poor and minority communities, it would seem imperative for govt to take control of those markets through legislation, or even and EO! Drug legalization would be the best gun control legislation ever!
I know it’s more complicated than that, there are huge social and economic issues. Not to mention the political sea change that would be required.
Obewon February 26th, 2016 at 19:56
Debunked gun stroking Loser: “According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions.”(2) “The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.”(3) Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.(4)” http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/
Warman1138 August 1st, 2015 at 22:32
The NRA certainly got it’s moneys worth with the present congress. Money won’t buy you love but you can get a lot of politicians with it.
Logic always reigns February 26th, 2016 at 18:33
to the 40% of gun sales that aren’t covered
This number has been debunked many many times including in Washington Post wonkblog. In fact under 0.4% of guns used in crime come from on background check transactions and there is every evidence those would d simply move to straw purchase if any “universal background check law closes them down.
Obewon February 26th, 2016 at 19:51
Thanks for reproving you remain a functionally illiterate debunked dissembler: The ability of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms to find sellers willing to transfer firearms to them without background checks.
As of September 2013, about 67,000 firearms were listed for sale online from private, unlicensed sellers.(5)
-29% of ads by private sellers on Armslist.crap (a popular website for firearm sales) were posted by high-volume private sellers who posted five or more ads over an eight-week period.(6)
According to an undercover investigation conducted by the City of New York, 62% of private online firearm sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer even after the buyer had told the seller that he or she probably could not pass a background check.(7) http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/
Logic always reigns February 26th, 2016 at 20:46
Ok you just posted a laughable bunch of junk from a Bloomberg funded lobby group and your posts says NOTHING about your claim on 40%.
And you seem to not know that online sales have to go through FFL. And lots of people think a dope arrest prohibits them when it does not. so what? Again your 40% is total BS