Fact vs. fiction on background checks and the gun control debate

foxnews.com ^ | 9 April, 2013 | John Lott

[marktwain]

Will Senate Democrats be able to end debate on their new gun control bill Tuesday night? President Obama says that it is “not right” to continue the debate. But he might be more afraid that Senators will point out all of his false claims and reveal the gun control bill’s dangers.

Mr. Obama got it all backwards in his April 3rd speech in Colorado: "tougher background checks . . . won’t infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people."

The president kept claiming this week and last week that: “as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check” and that "background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” But both statistics are false.

Start with the 40 percent figure. That number comes from a very small study covering purchases during 1991 to 1994. Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. The act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks.

And what's more, Mr. Obama conveniently forgets that the researchers gave this number (well, actually 36%, not his rounding up to 40%) for all transfers, not just for guns sold. Most significantly, the vast majority of these transfers involved within-family inheritances and gifts.

Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent not actually going through federally licensed dealers. But even that is much too high as there were biases in the survey.

[marktwain]

The whole "background check" is a failed paradigm. It puts a burden on 99 percent of the people for almost no benefit for high costs. Its only real purpose is to lay the groundwork for registration and confiscation.

It should be done away with.

[TigersEye]

This is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

They take a vote on that at their peril not ours.

[JPG]

Mandatory remedial English class for all members of congress in order to explain and explore the full meaning of the phrase:

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[TurboZamboni]

I’d say Lanza’s mom paid the ultimate price for not being more cautious.

Maybe Dems want to revive her to kill her again and make an example for Uncle Joe.