Comments

Impractically Useless — 8 Comments

  1. This analysis focuses exclusively on the benefits of the bill, and concludes that the bill would be useless or nearly useless, which might give a reader the impression that the bill is at worst a benign waste of time. But it fails to explore the projected costs of the bill, the main one being criminal penalties applied to innocent people who have no criminal motives. The danger in the creation of a brand new class of victimless “paperwork crimes” cannot be overstated.

    Compare the projected consequences of this bill with the history of Canada’s firearms registration database, which ended up costing three orders of magnitude more than the government projected, and was never found useful in solving a single actual crime – except for the new crime of “failure to register,“ an entirely artificial “crime“ existing only because the government had created a registry.

    • I agree with your points from a data and issues comparison standpoint. We had considered attempting to add what the possible negative safety aspects would be (i.e., keep a legit recipient from obtaining a gun and committing a defensive gun use). But the slipperiness of those numbers made the attempt impractical.

  2. No where, in the text of the Second Amendment, will you find the words, “until”, “unless”, or “except” ….. therefore, ANY, AND ALL, gun legislation violates both the letter and the intent of the Second Amendment.
    The supreme court is FORBIDDEN THE MAKING (or, unmaking) OF “LAW”. The ‘court’ may only tender their “opinion” as to the Constitutionality of legislation. Then, BY LAW, the matter MUST be returned to Congress – the SOLE LEGISLATIVE BODY …. at least according to the Constitution.

    Outlaws, by definition, are “outside the law” … so, what is it that makes anyone think that “just one more law” will make these “outlaws” suddenly begin to obey The Law.

    Each, and every, State that has joined the union agreed, upon joining, TO BE BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION ….. including the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Any State that drafts ‘gun legislation’ violates the Constitution – anyone SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, who attempts to “enforce” such “legislation” violates their Oath, commits Malfeasance of Office (automatically removing themselves from that office, the authority of that office, and any protections due that office), and is acting under Color of Law as a common criminal, are “committing Acts of War” against the Republic & the Constitution(since the Constitution is the SOLE AUTHORITY for the existence of the union and is the sole source of their “authority”). All such States are in a “State of Insurrection” against The United States.

  3. Omar Mateen (Orlando Fl June 2016) and the Pulse nightclub, at the time, was a terrorist attack and the 2 weapons, rifle & handgun, were purchased legally.
    Just wanted to make sure our FACTS are airtight.
    Here is an updated list of high profile attackers who passed background checks for their guns:
    Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard, Sept 2013)
    Aaron Ybarra (Seattle Pacific University, June 2014)
    Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis, Sept 2012)
    Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall Jan 2014)
    Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland, Texas,May 2015)
    Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara, May 2014)
    Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014)
    Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas Nv, June 2014)
    James Holmes (Aurora theater Co, July 2012)
    Jared Loughner (Tucson Az, Jan 2011)
    Jiverly Wong (Binghamton Al, April 2009)
    Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School, Co, Dec 2013)
    Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood Tx, Nov 2009)
    Naveed Haq (Seattle, Wa, July 2006)
    Mark Barton (Atlanta, Ga, July 1999)
    Patrick Purdy (Stockton Ca, Jan 1989)
    Paul Ciancia (LAX, Ca, Nov 2013)
    Ricky Don McCommas (Granbury, Tx, June 2013 )
    Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech, Va, April 2007)
    Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia, April 2013)
    Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga, Tn, July 2015)
    Dylann Roof (Charleston, Sc, June 2015)
    John Russell Houser, (Grand Theatre 16, Lafayette, La)
    Vester Lee Flanagan II, (Roanoke, Virginia Aug 2015)
    Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer, (Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Or, Oct 2015)
    Syed Rezwan Farook & Tashfeen Malik (San Bernardino, Ca, Dec 2015)
    Jason Brian Dalton (Kalamazoo Mi Feb 2016)
    Omar Mateen (Orlando Fl June 2016)
    James T. Hodgkinson (Washington D.C. June 2017)
    Dr. Henry Bello (New York City Hospital June 2017 )
    Emanuel Kidega Samson (Antioch church, Nashville, Tn 2017)
    Pedro Alberto Vargas (Todel Apartments, Hialeah, Fl, 2013)
    Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple, Oak Creek, Wi, 2012)
    Devin Patrick Kelley (First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs Texas, 2017)
    Stephen Paddock (Route 91 Harvest festival, Las Vegas Nv 2017)
    William Edward Atchison ( Aztec High School, New Mexico Dec, 2017)
    Nikolas de Jesus Cruz (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland Fl, Feb 2018)
    Robert Stewart (nursing home, Carthage, Nc March 2009)
    Jeong Soo Paek (Korean spa, Norcross, GA Feb, 2012)

  4. “Transfers to presumed good actors: You might sell or lend a gun to someone who you do not know is a prohibited person, or who is actually not prohibited but later uses the gun in a crime. For sake of argument, let’s assume (a) everyone selling/giving the gun would conduct a background check and that (b) 78% of the recipients are prohibited (we derived this number by finding the ratio between the FFL crime gun acquisition against the criminals who go straight to the black market). This also means at most only 22% of this group would be caught in a “universal” background check.”

    I think this section may need a bit more explanation. The way I interpret this group is that of the 37% of criminals who obtain their guns through private transfers, 22% of them would pass an NICS check anyway and could thus obtain their weapon through an FFL if they wanted. This would mean that the UBC would have no effect on their ability to commit a murder.

    The other 78%, on the other hand,represent prohibited persons who are currently obtaining guns via private sales without an NICS check. Would it not be this group that would potentially be caught through a UBC system (assuming of course that the prohibited person would not just seek their weapon in the black market instead)?

    • I get your point about the wording. It could have been better.

      The point, poorly made, was that 78% of the “friends transfers” would likely be between people who knew the act was illegal, and thus would avoid doing a background check (e.g., they are already committing a crime, so why not two). The other 22% would be people doing a transfer to a possibly bad actor and might trigger a NICS denial.

      • OK, maybe I have a clearer understanding of your assumptions now. As I see it, there are 3 types of private transfers
        1-Good guy to good guy: these don’t result in a crime gun.
        2-Bad guy to bad guy: these would take place regardless of UBC policy.
        3-Good guy to bad guy: UBC’s could be effective here.

        Types 2&3 account for 37% of crime guns, and you assume that 22% of bad guys will seek their firearms from an honest source (because that many get their guns from FFLs) while 78% seek out bad sellers.

        I’m not convinced these categories are nuanced enough. What still remains to be quantified are:
        -The number of reluctant bad sellers (ie sellers who would no longer sell to a prohibited person if a paper trail were required). Reducing these could potentially prevent crimes committed via bad guy to bad guy transfers (Type 2)
        -The number of persistent bad buyers (ie buyers who would go to the black market or a bad seller if rejected from a good seller after an NICS check). This would reduce the effectiveness of UBCs in eliminating crimes through type 3 transfers.

        Perhaps the best way to categorize bad guys is:
        -Would pass an NICS check anyway (UBCs can’t help here)
        -Would get a gun illegally anyway (UBCs can’t help here either)
        -Would stop after failing an NICS (UBCs could be effective, but considering the fact that murder is almost never a killers first offense, it seems unlikely that this could account for anything but a tiny minority of cases)

        Maybe some other stats could provide the basis for assumptions on these categories, for example the NICS denial/conviction rate.

        • I agree that the subcategories are not nuanced enough, but there is a lack of data and any further division would be pure guesswork.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Have You Donated To The Gun Facts Project Lately?

 

Donate Now!

Gun Facts is primarily funded by your contributions. Help us to debunk gun policy misinformation by making a small donation today.