Another lie. 74 percent of NRA members support background checks because they're already in place for dealers. NOT for "all gun sales".
“According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, ‘about 40 percent of gun sales nationwide are made without a background check to see if the purchaser is a criminal or otherwise prohibited from buying guns.’” That’s a startling, attention-getting statement, but it isn’t true.
Let’s take a look at the truth. The genesis of that statement was a 1994 telephone survey conducted by the Police Foundation and funded by the Justice Department. The survey asked “only” 251 participants who had acquired guns in the previous two years if they had acquired their firearm from a licensed dealer. The response indicated that 35.7 percent did not; however, many transactions in that category were probably within-family transfers and/or gifts. But more importantly, the Brady background check law didn’t go into effect until March 1, 1994; hence, most or all of those firearms were purchased or acquired before there was a background check requirement. Keep in mind, that whatever value this report has, it is 20 years old and certainly doesn’t reflect the situation in 2014 America.
Using the above-report as a basis, Professors Cook and Ludwig of Duke University created two other reports in 1997 for the National Institute of Justice, concluding that “approximately 60 percent of gun acquisitions involved [federally licensed firearms dealers]...;”. The Brady claim is based on those reports, and they rounded up the 35.7 to 40 percent. That 40 percent number has gone viral and has become gospel to the whole anti-gun crowd, including Mr. Moore.
I have never met an NRA member who supported background checks and I’ve been a member since 1983. Why should a law abiding citizen go thorough a check that a criminal does not have to. It’ only ads to a false sense of security, put the burden on the seller/buyer and allows the government to get it’s hooks into your liberty deeper.
My view is that in the rare event where a person has a documented issue, their name should be on a no sale list. If your name is not on the list, you get to buy one freely. It’s not the ownership of the firearm that should be regulated, it’s the improper use. If I owned a sound suppressed, short barreled fully automatic weapon that had pistol grips, 100 magazine and a bayonet lug but use it responsibly, why should the government care?