Do Background Checks for Gun Purchases Actually Work?

I have been curious regarding how little effort the gun-control crowd has been exerting to prove that mandatory background checks work. There are, after all, six states that require all-private party sales to go through a background check, and ten states that require it for all handgun purchases. If driven to advocate for mandatory checks, you would think the case studies of these sixteen states must have provided plenty of evidence that such laws reduce murder rates, and thus affected your decision. Right?

I found this testimony to the U.S. Senate by Dr. Daniel Webster, a public health professor, from a few weeks back – he claims that Missouri’s repeal of its permit-to-purchase law (which required police approval of all firearms purchases) increased murder rates. His testimony claims that the increase was directly tied to the repeal of the law:

In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase.

That is a pretty startling increase, but several aspects of the claim made me start sniffing the air for fertilizer.

First of all, notice that this claim includes only firearms homicides. People stabbed to death don’t matter? It turns out that while Missouri’s murder rates (from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports) did indeed rise from 2007 to 2008, it was a 24% increase, which while still disturbing, is not as disturbing as 34%.

Secondly, when public-health specialists talk about “firearms homicides,” they do not necessarily mean criminal acts. The Centers for Disease Control database, which both Dr. Webster and I are using, has two different categories for intentional killing of another person with a firearm: “homicides,” and “legal interventions.” It is very clear that at least some of the deaths in the “firearms homicides” category are not crimes, but lawful uses of deadly force. The number of “legal intervention” firearms homicides deaths is so low — 45 from 1999 through 2010 for Missouri[1] — that it almost certainly represents only police officer killings, and does not properly include other legal interventions.

A longstanding problem with murder statistics is that some defensive killings are initially charged as murder or non-negligent manslaughter, and are reported to the FBI and CDC as such. A startling number of defensive gun uses are only reclassified days, weeks, or even months later, as the criminal justice system slowly works its way to an answer. At least with the FBI’s data, if that reclassification does not happen before the calendar month is over, it stays on the books as a murder or manslaughter.

I suspect that the same is true for CDC’s data. While there is an element of misfortune when a rapist or armed robber gets shot to death, this is hardly the tragedy that Dr. Webster’s testimony brings to mind when you read “firearms homicide.”

Thirdly, how “sharply” did the repeal of the “permit-to-purchase” law in August of 2007 increase firearms homicides? In other words, was it immediate and thus more likely tied to the repeal?

Here’s a graph of firearms homicides from CDC’s data for 2007 and 2008, by month[2]:

It took eight months before the “sharp” increase took place.

So perhaps the repeal of the law in August 2007 is not related to the increase.

St. Louis Public Radio ran a series of programs in late 2008 specifically about the increase in gang violence — including murders — that had lately plagued the city.

Perhaps this is the real cause. Of course, it is possible that the gangs had been unable to obtain guns before the repeal of the permit-to-purchase law, but forgive my skepticism in not buying that the gangs waited eight months to take advantage of the new law.

Fourthly, when I look at the rate for all murders and non-negligent manslaughters (the data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports program), I find that the increase in murder rates (not just with those icky guns, but with knives, fists, and other weapons) is not quite as impressive as the 34% figure Dr. Webster used.

In the four years after the law was in effect (2008-2011), Missouri had a murder rate 10% higher than the period 1999-2007. And again: the FBI’s murder rates include at least some killings later determined to be lawful use of force. It is possible that some of the apparent increase in murders was because easier access to firearms meant more dead rapists, robbers, and murderers; at this point, we really do not have enough data to know for sure:

The most serious problem with the testimony: the increase in murder rates is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level commonly used in the social sciences.[3]

Thus, it could be entirely coincidence that murder rates rose starting in 2008.

It is possible that the repeal of the permit-to-purchase law increased murder rates, but with the data now available, it is more likely a coincidence.

great article, thanks for posting.

Everyone needs to understand that first there is no “gun show loophole.” That is focus group tested political sound byte hype.

Few criminals get their firearms from gun shows. The Department of Justice did a survey and found that less than 1% of criminals got their firearms from gun shows. (See table 8 & 9 in the following study http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf )

To further understand why ALL background checks, universal or not are really just so much smoke and mirrors one needs to understand the 5th Amendment within the Bill of Rights as it has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court.

In Haynes v. United States, ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States ) “....Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself. In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes...”

WHAT, YOU MEAN THAT FIREARM REGISTRATIONS LAWS DON'T APPLY TO FELONS! Yes, they only apply to law abiding people.

Congress did come up with a solution to this tiny little problem. It was resolved in another US Supreme Court case United States v. Freed (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/601/case.html#605 )

The fix is that it is the person who is selling is the one that is facing legal sanctions and not the person buying. Criminals can still lie and not be held accountable because fo their 5th Amendment rights.

“...The transferor must identify himself, describe the firearm, and give the name and address of the transferee, whose application must be supported by fingerprints and a photograph and a law enforcement official’s certificate identifying them as those of the transferee and stating that the weapon is intended for lawful uses. Only after the transferor’s receipt of the approved application form may the firearm transfer be legally made. A transferee does not and cannot register, though possession of an unregistered firearm is illegal. No information or evidence furnished under the Act can be used as evidence against a registrant or applicant...”

In short background checks are not designed to make it illegal for criminals to buy firearms, they are designed to make it illegal to sell firearms to criminals. And to make things harder, criminals can lie about themselves during the background check process so as to get the firearms they want.

Now go back to Table 8 in the Justice Department Survey and see where criminals get their firearms and think about our current background check system at places that have FFL license and participate in the NICS system.

According to Table 8 Criminals get 8.3% to 14.7% of their firearms from “retail stores” that is gun-shops, sporting goods stores, etc. The kind of places that are required to use the NICS system. But wait, gun shows account for only 0.7 to 0.6% of Criminal firearms! Also note that pawn shops (which should have FFL’s if they sell a lot of firearms) are a source of 3.8% to 4.2% of Criminal firearms.

So not only is there NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE, a universal background check is designed to address a trivial source of where criminals get their firearms.

As Table 8 shows the problem is that criminals get their firearms from friends (fellow gang members) and family and from illegal street sources.

Does anyone think the following conversations will happen?

(1) Hey sister, can I trade or sell you these drugs or this stolen TV for that revolver of yours? Sure, but first we need to go down to the local police state and fill out the paperwork for a firearm transfer. Your good with that aren't you my brother?

(2) Hey my good illegal drug dealer, I need to get a pistol so I can rob a store to get money to buy more drugs from your. Sure my good addict friend, but before I give you this pistol, we both need to go to the police station pay them $20 and fill out the paperwork so I can transfer this stolen pistol to you.

The universal background check is all smoke and mirrors. It is legally designed to apply only to honest people. Criminals are not honest people and will ignore the law.
It will further not result in any meaningful reduction in gun violence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.