Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Oh look -- Background Checks work!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Oh look -- Background Checks work!

    At least that's the conclusion of the RTD:

    Stats show background checks are effective
    “It’s positive to see that the Virginia State Police are enforcing the laws on the books,” said Thomas R. Baker, a criminologist and an assistant professor of criminal justice studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. “The fact that they actively pursue individuals who try to purchase a gun illegally means the background check system helps to not only keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them, but also helps identify and punish individuals trying to illegally obtain guns.”

    I think this strengthens the argument that all gun transactions should involve a background check of the purchaser,” Baker added.
    But remember, "denied" is not synonymous with "convicted" -- the paper should make that clearer.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Yup, that backgropund check system sure is working! And the cops are right on top of all those folks trying to scam the system - not!

    Any FFL that actually runs a background check when the prospective purchaser has checked any of the "YES" boxes (except the first one) is an idiot. Admitting you are a prohibited person does not need a background check to confirm you are a prohibited person. And a simple call to VSP about you attempting to purchase should be the result.

    But, according to the data presented, 4,298 arrests between 2007 and 2012 resulted from 17,920 denials during that time period. Unless I have screwed up the math, that's 24% of denials resulting in arrests.

    Yup, that background check system sure is working! But apparently VSP is not!

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Wanted to keep this separate from my post above -

    We seem to need to change what we say about where and how criminals and the mentally deranged get their guns - apparently a large number (40,371 is a "large" number) actually did try to get a gun by going through the background check.

    I do not have the numbers of background transactions submitted in the same time period so cannot determine if that 40,371 is statistically significant or not. But it sure is a BIG number when it hangs out there all by itself, isn't it?

    Now, if there was an easy way to get the low-information voters and politicians (but I repeat myself) to understand that yes, in fact criminals and the mentally deranged are in fact already stupid enough to go through a background check so there is no need to fiddle with the system.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 02-17-2013 at 02:04 PM. Reason: #&*^% typo that would not die
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Yup, that backgropund check system sure is working! And the cops are right on top of all those folks trying to scam the system - not!

    Any FFL that actually runs a background check when the prospective purchaser has checked any of the "YES" boxes (except the first one) is an idiot. Admitting you are a prohibited person does not need a background check to confirm you are a prohibited person. And a simple call to VSP about you attempting to purchase should be the result.

    But, according to the data presented, 4,298 arrests between 2007 and 2012 resulted from 17,920 denials during that time period. Unless I have screwed up the math, that's 24% of denials resulting in arrests.

    Yup, that background check system sure is working! But apparently VSP is not!

    stay safe.
    Well if you say the system is working but the VSP is not, what do you base this on. Is it the fact that only 24% resulted in arrest. Lets see since they only arrest on the most severe offenses like Felony, Felony Indictment and Mental Health people then that number would be about right. I guess they could have arrested for the 30 day handgun violation, along with people that have a drug conviction. They have instructions to only arrest on certain offenses but pnce again you want to fault someone without knowing all the facts, rules etc..

  5. #5
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    They'd work a lot better if the severe penalties were actually imposed.

    From the referenced RTD article:
    "The seller soon realized his mistake while sorting through paperwork and alerted state police, Cerullo said.

    Trooper D.M. Sottile, who investigates firearm denials, tracked Booker down and executed a search warrant at his Petersburg home to recover the weapon. In addition to the antique revolver, Sottile recovered a modern .22-caliber handgun and ammunition for those guns and for a 9 mm pistol, Cerullo said. Marijuana and cocaine were also recovered.
    Booker admitted buying some of the ammunition at the gun show, Cerullo said.
    Booker, 51, who has more than a dozen convictions for burglary, grand larceny, robbery, arson, assault and carrying a concealed weapon, was convicted in Henrico of making a false statement on the firearms form and sentenced to serve one year in jail.
    In Petersburg, he pleaded guilty to possessing the .38-caliber revolver he purchased as a felon, possessing ammunition as a felon and possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison with 10 suspended, according to court records."
    Last edited by 2a4all; 02-17-2013 at 02:51 PM.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by tkd2006 View Post
    Well if you say the system is working but the VSP is not, what do you base this on. Is it the fact that only 24% resulted in arrest. Lets see since they only arrest on the most severe offenses like Felony, Felony Indictment and Mental Health people then that number would be about right. I guess they could have arrested for the 30 day handgun violation, along with people that have a drug conviction. They have instructions to only arrest on certain offenses but pnce again you want to fault someone without knowing all the facts, rules etc..
    Could I have a citation on this, please: They have instructions to only arrest on certain offenses

    Intentionally not telling the truth (lying) on the state background check form is a separate crime in and of itself. You appear to be saying that VSP has instructions not to enforce the law when presented with evidence of a criminal violation. Or am I somehow misinterpreting your statement?

    Please note that I am not one of those that says the law must be blindly followed because it is the law. But I have a problem with selective enforcement - it just points out that certain parts of the law are considered by those in power to be meaningless unless and until they want to use them to hang on you so they have "something". If VSP has instructions to arrest foir certain offenses, then let's get rid of all the others because both VSP and those that issued the instructions andthose that condone the instructions do not see the other offenses as serious enough to warrant taking action against. There's no reason to have a law against something if you are not going to treat a violation as something serious enough to arrest and prosecute.

    http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townn...a2b892.pdf.pdf "An untruthful answer may subject you to prosecution" seems to be an indication of selective enforcement.

    stay safe.

    edited to add -

    It just occurred to me that tkd2006 just may have been saying that the Virginia background check form only asks about 3 possible disqualifying categories, while the federal 4377 lists a whole bunch more, so that VSP only arrests for those who are prohibited on those grounds. And yet, 18.2-308.1.1; -1.2; -1.3; -1.4; - 1.5 and -2.01 list other categories of prohibited persons not on the Va background check form. Are the VSP actually instructed to ignore those?
    Last edited by skidmark; 02-17-2013 at 03:11 PM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would bet that if one did a cost-benefit analysis then one would find that BR checks are not effective.

    Ex: it cost 1 trillion dollars/2012 yr ... stopped, say 5000 (to keep it a nice figure) ... and lets say that 20% of the guns, on avg, would result in a death (and est. that is way over actual) ...

    That would = 1 million dollars/life ... clearly not cost effective

    Just because a program prevents a death does not mean its effective ...

  8. #8
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I would bet that if one did a cost-benefit analysis then one would find that BR checks are not effective.

    Ex: it cost 1 trillion dollars/2012 yr ... stopped, say 5000 (to keep it a nice figure) ... and lets say that 20% of the guns, on avg, would result in a death (and est. that is way over actual) ...

    That would = 1 million dollars/life ... clearly not cost effective

    Just because a program prevents a death does not mean its effective ...
    I think your logic is perverted.

    If a program is designed to save lives, and it actually does save lives, then, by definition, it is effective.

    As to the cost, whose life are you valuing here? Yours? Tell us what you think it's worth, and we'll put it out to the highest bidder.

    BTW, your math is off. 1 trillion divided by 1,000 is 1 billion.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    David confuses "effective" with "efficient".

    But he does suggest there is an answer to the question "What's it worth if it saves just one life?"

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    David confuses "effective" with "efficient".

    But he does suggest there is an answer to the question "What's it worth if it saves just one life?"

    stay safe.
    No, the operative word is effective (in $$/life). And there is an answer to the question as to how much is a life worth. To say otherwise is to say that we should spend a hundred trillion dollars to save 1 life.

    And the government does this day in and day out. When looking at transportation issues, FDA food & drug issues, etc. Why would a BR chk not be subjected to the same analysis?

    The people & gov't only have so many $$ ... why spend $1 MM/person on BR checks when $1MM dollars can save 10,000 lives when spent on something else?

    Just saying that a program saved 100 lives per year is not sufficient enough to say that a program is effective. It has to be cost effective as well.

    Why are there not red light cameras at every intersection with red lights in places that support or tout that red light cameras as being able to save lives? Because it would cost too much. Just one of many examples.

    If you do not support this then you must support biometrics on all firearms. Don't fall into this trap.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Please do not presume to know what else I support based on my support or non-suport of one issue. It's rude, as well as often times wrong.

    We can argue "effective" vs "efficient" all day long. But you are actually arguing "cost effective" which is another way of looking at efficiency - doing something that provides the desired result with the least expenditure of effort and cost. The question is, what is your break point above which it no longer is "cost effective"?

    By saying background checks work regardless of the cost per life saved you get out of both efficiency and cost effectiveness. You set a point at which it is no longer (not?) cost effective: "That would = 1 million dollars/life ... clearly not cost effective"

    So what is your break point? What is the maximum expenditure to save one life that remains cost effective? (No, I am not challenging you as the antis would. I'm just curious as an intellectual exercise to see how you arrive at a, any, value of a life.) That being said, I suppose I shoud ask you not to respond publically as we know THEY are monitoring OCDO. There are probably hordes (is 3 a horde?) waiting with bated breath to see if you fall into that trap.

    I'm leaving the discussion with the comment that
    We seem to need to change what we say about where and how criminals and the mentally deranged get their guns - apparently a large number (40,371 is a "large" number) actually did try to get a gun by going through the background check.

    I do not have the numbers of background transactions submitted in the same time period so cannot determine if that 40,371 is statistically significant or not. But it sure is a BIG number when it hangs out there all by itself, isn't it?

    Now, if there was an easy way to get the low-information voters and politicians (but I repeat myself) to understand that yes, in fact criminals and the mentally deranged are in fact already stupid enough to go through a background check so there is no need to fiddle with the system.
    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Well, it all depends on how they vote. Does the life vote liberty, or does the life vote liberal? I certainly place a higher value on liberty voters as opposed to liberal voters. We can negotiate the actual value in committee and then move it to a vote by the full House and Senate.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    341
    And why does a denial have to equate with a required arrest?

    If a veteran who was seen at a VA clinic for post traumatic stress and whose name was misguidedly submitted to the data base goes to a gun store and is denied, should he be arrested?

    If Dave Smith goes to a gun store and tries to buy a gun, but is rejected, because there is a different David Smith in the data base who is a felon, should he be arrested?

    If Jim Jones goes to a gun store and tries to buy a gun, but is rejected, because he was mistakenly arrested a few years before on a potential felony charge, which continues to be on the data base in err, should he be arrested?

    Everyone rails against the accuracy of the underlying data, yet there is an expectation that every denial should result in an arrest and that somehow the VSP aren't doing their job because there isn't?
    Last edited by jegoodin; 02-20-2013 at 11:51 AM. Reason: Typo

  14. #14
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by jegoodin View Post
    And why does a denial have to equate with a required arrest?
    It doesn't. And it shouldn't. The RTD article regrettably does not discuss the reality of False Positives. John Lott discusses the problem here:

    'False Positives' From Brady Law Bar Gun Ownership

    and here:

    Rounding Up the Guns

    Media Matters could not tolerate the truth, so Lott defended his research:

    Media Matters' Potentially Lethal Distortions on Guns

    This was all back in 2011. More recently, Lott published this:

    The truth on background checks

    and this:

    The ‘40 Percent’ Myth - The figure gun-control advocates are throwing around is false.

    Basically, our side tells the truth; the other side does not.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    It doesn't. And it shouldn't.
    Yeah, that was pretty much my point...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    At least that's the conclusion of the RTD:

    Stats show background checks are effective


    But remember, "denied" is not synonymous with "convicted" -- the paper should make that clearer.
    This is absolutely correct. I have had many customers denied, but subsequently approved on future purchases.

    I had an active duty military member who wanted to buy a rifle at a gun show. He did not have his orders on him, but he did have his North Carolina Drivers License and another form of ID with the same home adress on it. The Virginia State Police denied him.

    The next day he came back to the gun show with his Military ID and orders. I called the Virginia State Police and they said submit the check. I did and he was approved. Turns out he had an outstanding ticket in North Carolina which was somehow tied to NICS (Outstanding warant maybe).

    Bottom line, NICS denial does not = prohibited person.

    My two cents:

    There are only 2 things that universal background checks will do:

    1. Prevent future 18-20 year olds from posessing handguns.
    2. Create a back door for gun registration.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  17. #17
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121

    Tim Kaine Anti-American - Anti-Constitutional

    A cut of a letter I received from him...

    Thank you for contacting me to share your views on proposals to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you.
    No one can deny that gun violence is a serious problem in this country today. We owe it to the victims of the growing number of mass shootings to vigorously debate specific and comprehensive proposals that can keep our communities safer. The right approach focuses on many issues - improvements to the mental health system, better security protocols and common sense rules about gun use, including keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
    When I was on the Richmond City Council in the 1990s, our city was mired in an epidemic of gun violence that included the city having the second-highest homicide rate in the United States. The most successful step we took was implementing Project Exile, a program that involved federal prosecution and tougher penalties for gun crimes that were previously treated more leniently in state courts. Celebrated by diverse groups engaged in the gun violence debate - including the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign - the program helped drive down Richmond's homicide rate by nearly 60 percent within a few years.
    In 2007, the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech revealed glaring weaknesses in campus security protocols at colleges and universities, in our mental health system and the gun background check system for gun purchases. In a bipartisan spirit, I worked with then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to immediately improve our background check system and issued an executive order ensuring that those adjudicated to be mentally ill and dangerous would be entered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons. We also changed standards for mental health treatment and increased funding for community health programs while dramatically improving campus security and efforts to assist college students suffering from mental stress.
    In January I attended a round-table event in Richmond with Vice President Biden on gun violence, to talk about the lessons learned in Virginia and the need for a comprehensive approach to these problems. As your U.S. Senator, I will work to bring that kind of comprehensive approach that will strengthen the safety of our communities, while protecting our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner who worked with others to constitutionally guarantee Virginians the right to hunt, I know that you can be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment without tolerating the gun tragedies that are too often a part of our daily lives.
    Concerning specific proposals, I am a strong supporter of universal background record checks. This is the only way we can enforce existing laws that prohibit dangerous individuals from purchasing guns. I am open to supporting legislation placing reasonable limits on high capacity magazines, combat-style weapons and gun trafficking if they are carefully drafted.

    Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as Congress continues to debate strategies to reduce gun violence. Thank you once again for contacting me.


    Sincerely,
    Tim Kaine
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Background checks will NEVER work. Period. Government statistics and claims that they have stopped the purchase of thousands of guns are absolutely meaningless. Here's why:

    First, because they do nothing to the person who is illegally trying to buy a gun, that person will just walk out of the store and go acquire (steal) a gun or other lethal weapon somewhere else.

    Second, if they ever do start arresting people on the spot and putting them in jail for many years for illegally attempting to buy a gun, the ineligible will figure this out very fast, and stop attempting to buy guns legally. They will just go acquire (steal) a gun or other lethal weapon somewhere else.

    See a theme here? The bad guy always ends up with a gun or lethal weapon anyway.

    Now that I've spelled that out, it makes perfect sense why they don't arrest and prosecute illegal attempts to buy guns. If they did, the number of attempts would quickly dry up, and the government could no longer make their meaningless claim that their background checks have stopped thousands of illegal sales!

    This is the problem with liberals, not only for guns, but for everything else as well. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. ObamaCare is in trouble because everyone is finding loopholes to avoid coverage costs that they cannot afford. Who could have seen that coming? Anyone who is not a liberal. People adapt to adversity, always have, always will. Liberals write laws in a vacuum, where they assume people will just blindly follow along in lock-step, obeying the piper, but in real life, it just does not happen. This is why nearly every liberal law or idea ends up accomplishing the exact opposite of what they had originally intended.

    TFred

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South Chesterfield, VA
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by nuc65 View Post
    A cut of a letter I received from him...

    Thank you for contacting me to share your views on proposals to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you.
    No one can deny that gun violence is a serious problem in this country today. We owe it to the victims of the growing number of mass shootings to vigorously debate specific and comprehensive proposals that can keep our communities safer. The right approach focuses on many issues - improvements to the mental health system, better security protocols and common sense rules about gun use, including keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
    When I was on the Richmond City Council in the 1990s, our city was mired in an epidemic of gun violence that included the city having the second-highest homicide rate in the United States. The most successful step we took was implementing Project Exile, a program that involved federal prosecution and tougher penalties for gun crimes that were previously treated more leniently in state courts. Celebrated by diverse groups engaged in the gun violence debate - including the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign - the program helped drive down Richmond's homicide rate by nearly 60 percent within a few years.
    In 2007, the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech revealed glaring weaknesses in campus security protocols at colleges and universities, in our mental health system and the gun background check system for gun purchases. In a bipartisan spirit, I worked with then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to immediately improve our background check system and issued an executive order ensuring that those adjudicated to be mentally ill and dangerous would be entered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons. We also changed standards for mental health treatment and increased funding for community health programs while dramatically improving campus security and efforts to assist college students suffering from mental stress.
    In January I attended a round-table event in Richmond with Vice President Biden on gun violence, to talk about the lessons learned in Virginia and the need for a comprehensive approach to these problems. As your U.S. Senator, I will work to bring that kind of comprehensive approach that will strengthen the safety of our communities, while protecting our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner who worked with others to constitutionally guarantee Virginians the right to hunt, I know that you can be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment without tolerating the gun tragedies that are too often a part of our daily lives.
    Concerning specific proposals, I am a strong supporter of universal background record checks. This is the only way we can enforce existing laws that prohibit dangerous individuals from purchasing guns. I am open to supporting legislation placing reasonable limits on high capacity magazines, combat-style weapons and gun trafficking if they are carefully drafted.

    Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as Congress continues to debate strategies to reduce gun violence. Thank you once again for contacting me.


    Sincerely,
    Tim Kaine
    Not trying to hijack the thread, but I received the same letter from Kaine, and typed out a reply, counterpoints, explanations, etc. only to find out that his, and so many other politicians form letter replies come from invalid email addresses. So they are actively refusing to allow constituents to reply to them. That seems rather underhanded (who'da thunk it right?). Additionally, other than the NRA, GOA, Ruger, etc, email your rep things, I've had a difficult time finding actual email addresses for these guys. Admittedly, my google-fu is probably rather weak, but that would be unnecessary if they didn't use BS addresses to reply from. /end rant

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •