Obama, Media Memes, Background Checks, And Where Is Politifact When You Need Them?

There is broad public support for expanding the rules on background checks for gun purchases. However, that support may be based in part on a media myth created by Mayor Bloomberg. The press and the President toss around the figure of 40% as the number of gun sales that are not subject to a background check, but the basis for that figure is ephemeral.

As a baseline for the conventional wisdom, let's turn to President Obama. From his press conference announcing his gun control initiatives:

First:  It’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun.  (Applause.)   The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.  But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.  That’s not safe.  That's not smart.  It’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.

And the White House website:

Right now, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on those buying guns, but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement.

It is fair to say that the 40 percent figure has been widely reported. But what is the source, and is it accurate?

John Fund challenged the claim yesterday at NRO, but PolitiFact drilled down in July of 2012 when Mayor Bloomberg made the claim on "Face The Nation":

Bloomberg’s office pointed us to a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on a random survey of more than 2,500 households.

That was a 1997 study based on a telephone survey conducted in November and December of 1994; it was a time when passions ran high, following the Whackos in Waco, the 'assault weapons' ban, and the Gingrich-led Republican sweep of Congress in 1994. The study authors note the possibility of non-respondent bias, and we share their concerns - I am not sure that "Hi, I'm calling from the government and I want to ask about your guns" would have been viewed with equal equanimity across the political spectrum in 1994. As an example, the survey found that 35% of households owned guns; Gallup, covering the same time period, was around 50%.

In any case, the survey is now eighteen years old - surely the reality-based community hopes to make a stronger evidence-based claim than that? The survey asked about respondents' method of gun acquisition in 1993 and 1994; the Brady Bill with its instant background checks only went into effect in 1994 (it was a patchwork of state rules before then), so the survey does not even adress the current ground rules.

Here is Mayor Bloomberg's 2011 study, with this self-refuting commentary (my emphasis):

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Chief Policy Advisor John Feinblatt today announced the results of an investigation into internet gun sales, which found a vast and largely unregulated market for illegal guns, with 62 percent of private sellers willing to commit a felony by selling firearms to people who likely could not pass a background check. The investigation probed 10 websites that had 25,000 guns available for purchase and investigators contacted 125 private online gun sellers located in 14 states. The investigation included sellers on Craigslist, which prohibits the sale of firearms in its site according to its posted policies. The investigators clearly noted they probably could not pass a background check during each interaction with a seller. Videos of the illegal sales, including where the investigator meets the seller and the weapon and cash is exchanged, and a report on online gun sales – “Point, Click, Fire” – are available at www.nyc.gov.

So what is proposed in order to thwart these people willing to ignore the current law?

“Congress has to take action to require background checks of all sales..."

And the people willing to sell illegally to a person who couldn't pass a background check will suddenly comply with this new requirement? Why?

This suggestion makes more sense, kind of:

...the websites who profit off of this dangerous unregulated online market can clean up their acts right now.

Well, yes - public pressure might force Craigslist to rethink its approach but given the power of modern search engines I suspect buyers and sellers will figure out other ways to meet online, or in the physical world.

Here is PolitiFacts final non-ruling on Mayor Bloomberg's claim:

Our ruling

Mayor Bloomberg said 40 percent of gun sales take place through gun shows or the Internet.

The best information on the informal gun market is based on a survey and is about 15 years old. Current regulations don’t allow direct tallies of sales of this sort. An undercover investigation found a great deal of internet activity, but it was sponsored by a mayor who seeks greater regulation. Groups opposed to greater regulation were asked to rebut the mayor’s assertion and did not respond.

Yeah, it seems like the editors got ahold of that doesn't it?

Comments

[matt]

So they broke how many state and federal laws in carrying out their surveys? Isn't this a form of entrapment?

[Rob Crawford]

So, besides illegal guns and prostitutes, what do people buy on Craigslist?

[Janet]

Regular light bulbs, regular flow toilets, a game of lawn darts,....

[Janet]

Kinder eggs,...

[jimmyk]

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

There's no reason a Hollywood movie needs more that 6 gunshots. Or Dax Shepard. #pleasewontsomeonethinkofthechildren

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.

Is that 1.5 million actual legitimate rejections or all rejections, most of which are glitches which eventually let the sale proceed?
More importantly perhaps Mr. Barry could issue EO #24 commissioning a study of how many rejected buyers eventually got a gun by other means rather than telling the bald faced lie "that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun".

[jimmyk]

Kinder eggs,...

Don't forget shower heads.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--the Brady Bill with its instant background checks only went into effect in 1994 (it was the buyer's word of honor before that)--

Nationwide that is true but several states required background checks before a purchase was allowed for years prior to Brady.
It is my recollection that many gun dealers and purchasers especially in those states which required checks had asked for years for an instant check system that could be called for a quick go/no go on a person.
Prior to NICS it could take weeks for a sale to be approved in states that required a check.

[sbwaters]

shower heads

Soda cups.

[Threadkiller]

trans-fat

[Jim Eagle]

Don't forget the pain killers.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Speaking of banned substances, I haven't seen a link to good ol Lance Armstrong, seven time Tour de Psychopath champion finally coming sort of clean.
I probably just missed a previous link.

[matt]

Pot

[narciso]

It's bizarre isn't it, JiB, if NYC was being blockaded as the Germans tried, you wouldn't have a materially different result,

[Janet]

from FB -

[Janet]

another one -

[Cecil Turner]

There is broad public support for expanded the rules on background checks for gun purchases.

The problem is, lefties don't really mean "background checks" when they propose this sort of thing. They mean waiting periods, limits on purchases, fees and red tape. A great example is the Virginia FTP program. First, the gun control folks hyperventilated that the NRA seeks to weaken background check system in Virginia :

Gun Lobby Would Scrap State Database That is Best in Nation

But a very short search shows the problem isn't in the check, it's in the ancillary red tape :

So, for the past twelve years, the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP) has been obsolete and unnecessary. For all gun purchases, the VFTP requires additional paperwork (Virginia State Police Form 65 in addition to the federal Form 4473), imposes a two dollar fee (state gun tax - no fee for NICS) and causes inordinate delays, particularly on weekends at gun shows and gun stores since the Virginia State Police is not adequately staffing this operation to meet demand.

In particular, the systems set up by Dems just happen to take too long to allow a gun show sale. Meanwhile, there's very little heartburn on the right to a list of folks who aren't allowed to own guns. The real objection to a database comes from folks like the ACLU, who reiterated their objections in a recent letter to Joe Biden:

In particular, proposals have been floated to create an expansive national database to include people who have sought mental health treatment. Efforts to “track” people who receive mental health care will only further stigmatize and deter people from seeking treatment.

Getting a reasonable database together and checking all purchases (instantly, at point of sale) garners wide support, and in particular putting the mentally ill on the list. And perhaps that's what he meant by the second EA proposal:

Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

But if so, the resistance he needs to overcome is almost entirely on the left.

[Janet]

another one -

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Gun Lobby Would Scrap State Database That is Best in Nation--

I suppose it would ask too much of them to reveal that it was the Virginia database which failed to forward the Virginia Tech shooter's involuntary commitment to a mental health facility to NICS which allowed him to purchase his guns.
Of course he would have gotten them elsewhere if denied but "best in Nation"? Really?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 established the parameters of prohibited persons. On the mental health front there are two criteria;
1. Involuntary commitment, or;
2. Being legally adjudicated insane.

By what right would any new reg go beyond those parameters without an enabling new law?

[narciso]

Same for Loughner, and the Gallagher impersonator, and probably the Korean shooter in Oakland,

[sbwaters]

By what right would any new reg go beyond those parameters without an enabling new law?

Ig, "I said so" is good enough for O.

[Rob Crawford]

The problem is, lefties don't really mean "background checks" when they propose this sort of thing. They mean waiting periods, limits on purchases, fees and red tape.

And registration. Because the "gun show loophole" is about private sales. I have a gun, want to sell it to Joe in Dayton; he gives me cash, I give him the gun. Completely legal, now, whether it takes place at a gun show or not.

But they want a "background check" on Joe in Dayton. So I have to file the paperwork, and since legally no one but a Federal Firearm Licensee can access NICS, I have to go through one of them. That means a 4473 is filled out and the FFL runs the check.

Now, the FFL has to maintain that piece of paper FOR EVER. If their business closes, they have to send them all to the ATF. If an ATF agent walks in and asks, they have to let him see all of them.

If, someday, a tyrant says "round up all the 4473s so we know who owns guns", well, right now there's a plausible deniability gap: "I sold them to some guy." With universal background checks, there's always a chain of 4473s.

[Rob Crawford]

By what right would any new reg go beyond those parameters without an enabling new law?

Because.

[Rob Crawford]

Looks like Robin Hood's put on a bit of weight over the last 34 years. LUN

[NK]

Adopting a DHS regulation or EO beyond the USC Statute-- Barry I could, but if he does, I think he would lose, and badly, in federal court on statutory and constitutional grounds.

PS: why does this thread post refer to the Branch Davidians, as 'Whackos' as opposed to patriots who exercised their 2nd Amendment rights against a tyrannical government?

[narciso]

They give themselves away, don't they;

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/18/nbc-chuck-todd-guns/

[Rob Crawford]

NK -- they were both, so either term is applicable.

[maryrose]

Since I am now known as Boots Drakefield as my pole dancing career takes off, I just have to say that yesterday I failed to pass the eye test at the BMV to be allowed to drive after dusk. So in addition to wearing glasses , I am dangerous behind the wheel after dusk. My brother has a similar restriction but I have to start getting things done a little earlier in the day from now on.In all fairness they did allow me 2 attempts.It is now numbers not letters that you have to read.

[Soylent Red]

With universal background checks, there's always a chain of 4473s.

Only for transactions going forward from the date they put the law in place. Everything before that, since it didn't generate any 4473s would be invisible to LE/ATF.

That's why universal firearm registration is brought up, it closes that gap. If you possess it, you must register it. The intent is a national database of what firearm is located where and with whom. And the only plausible purpose of establishing such a database is to eventually use it for a gun grab.

[narciso]

Which is why the Joyce Foundation provided the seed money to Hargaten and Hemenway, to get that registry off the ground.

[maryrose]

Soylent Red:
I agree. It is no one's darn business if I own a gun. Where has our privacy gone? I am not on Facebook and my husband has the cellphone. I don't want people I don't know all up in my business. Except for this blog of course.

[narciso]

Well that DHS memo, wasn't enough, so they needed another more credible imprimatur;

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/18/terrorism-center-at-west-point-warns-against-danger-of-american-limited-government-activists-and-far-right/

[Ralph L]

Did anything O proposed address the black market? Isn't that where most criminals get their guns when they're too lazy to steal one for themselves?

[NK]

Narc-- I guess the Left agrees that the greatest bulwark against a Federal tyrant is the constitutionalism and patriotism of military officers and law enforcement officers. The Left always practices -- get 'em while their young.

[maryrose]

Ralphl'Of course not. That would be a possible real life solution. Obama spends his days in fantasy land. He still thinks he's going to get more tax hikes.

[rse]

SR-I am glad you pointed that out. BOR was not making that distinction the other night and hubby had it on. My kids hate it when I talk to TV but BOR was carelessly describing what he was OK with in a way that would create an affirmative duty to register.

Everything that has passed around in families.

And these days of computerized records make a database far more intrusive than the old days of paper records.

[Janet]

I don't want people I don't know all up in my business. Except for this blog of course.

Hahhahaaha...maryrose! too funny!

[NK]

fear of a Gun database? Hmmm. do you shop for ammo on line? do you use a credit card to purchase a firearm or ammo?; are you an NRA or other gun rights organization member?; do you browse firearm ownership and operation sites? are you a member of a gun club or shooting range? The "Do NO Evil" people and other data miners have a very good idea of what firearms you own, your current ammo stockpile, and how you use them.

[narciso]

Not really surprising where he's coming from, more likely understanding of Hamas, then the typical Israeli settler, from this;

http://history.sunysb.edu/blog/arieperliger/

[Rob Crawford]

Note that the "Combating Terrorism Center" is "an independent [snort], privately funded research and educational institution... that informs and shapes counterterrorism policy and strategy".

Who funds them?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

4473s have been known to be lost when dealers quit the business and are supposed to turn them in.

[rse]

NK-I am talking about all the guns in closets or on shelves or whereever that have been their for years. I have not shot a gun in years but my kids found it fascinating when we had the chance to shoot that I just kept nailing the clay models.

My dad taught me to shoot and I remembered to aim where it was going not where it was.

My kids tend to think of me first and foremost as a cook and chauffeur.

[NK]

Narc-- interesting link to my undergrad alma mater-- I liked the history department there 35 years ago, there were several fabulous guys, including a young prof focused on military and security and cold war studies. All gone-- what's there now? Ugh-- the typical gender race BS. Just a joke. Only one familiar name -- my wife's econometrics PhD advisor on loan from the Econ dept. He must be fossilized by now.

[AliceH]

nk: The government can, with duly issued warrant, discover what a particular paid for, not what they possess. Of COURSE they have the ability to break the law and grab that data illegally - hardly the same thing as establishing a requirement to nationalize registration of all acquisitions in a central repository where they are permitted to fish around in personal data without first establishing just cause.

[NK]

AliceH/rse-- hate to break this to you, but the Don't Do Evil and FB Big Data empires are part of TeamDem. I have no doubt that they will share firearms ownnership data with the Dems "in the national interest".

[NK]

PS: no need for Barry I/Holder to 'break the law' when Google/FB voluntarily turn over the info.

[AliceH]

Oh. So they are in a cahoots, breaking the law and infringing on our privacy, so we shouldn't object to and refute the purported legitimacy of formalizing a national database.

That is so absurd I have no further response.

[Ralph L]

Who funds them?
The Saudi royal family, of course.
(I've no idea).

We found 5 pistols in my grandmother's bedroom after she died 20 years ago. They were all my grandfather's--he'd died in 1956. The only gun she had that had been used in my lifetime was her 410 shotgun, by my cousin.

[jimmyk]

"Did anything O proposed address the black market? Isn't that where most criminals get their guns when they're too lazy to steal one for themselves?"

Now that newspapers publish addresses of who owns guns, theft is easy now. Problem solved.

[NK]

hate to break it to you again AliceH-- but Google/FB's data mining is not only perfectly lawful in the USA, it's proprietary. In fact in the case of FB, they claimed the contract right to OWN some of their users' personal data that flowed through a FB subsidiary. They can share that data with whomever they want-- including the federal government. The Wireless carriers did just that with the Bush Admin in 2002-2003. Oppose Federal database Legislation to you heart's content, but to assume that firearms ownership and ammo purchase info is part of 'privacy rights' is just contrafactual. Big Data is big business, and what the data miners know about all of us is.... troubling.

[narciso]

Actually most likely not, Ralph, they've been pretty good, in the past;

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmE4YTBlMGVlZDY5MjYxNGIyMjBlNTM3ZTkzMTc2MDM=

[Captain Hate]

I don't think Facebook is breaking the law if it's mining data which I voluntarily put out there, which is why I don't use it very much and rarely discuss politics there since I wouldn't trust that weasel Zuckerberg as far as I could dropkick him.

[matt]

jimmyk;

There's a special counter at ATF for black market purchasers. Just tell them the guns are for a Mexican Drug Cartel or the, Crips or El RUKN's and they'll be happy to help.

[daddy]

Why Do You Need So Many Quills?

Janet,

That "Why Do You Need" question in your links reminded me of a Childrens book that I really despise that is along that same line:

The Rainbow FisH.

It's about a fish with beautiful scales who refuses to yank out his scales and give them to other fish that don't have such pretty scales and want them. After being badgered for a while by many fish to yank out his scales and give them away, he finally does, and then finds true happiness when every fish looks exactly the same as every other fish. Struck me as Marxism 101 for Kindergartners, and the same as you're "Why Do You Need" pastes above.

It's worthwhile to read a few of the lowest rated comments for the book from the "Only 1 Star" recommendations at the Amazon Link.

[daddy]

Boots Drakefield, (Maryrose),

Sorry about the no driving at night Eye Test. Up here if you go to renew your license in person you have to take and pass the Eye Test at the DMV. But if instead we write in to renew our license shortly before it expires, we are automatically sent a renewed license without having to take any Eye Test at all.

Don't know why, but I like it.

[Soylent Red]

The "Do NO Evil" people and other data miners have a very good idea of what firearms you own, your current ammo stockpile, and how you use them.

Did I tell everyone here about my recent boating accident?

[matt]

that's your FAA license, right, daddy?

[daddy]

No, Matt. For the FAA one I've got the Eye Chart memorized.

Amazingly tho', I still have very good vision.

Soylent,

I missed the boating accident. Details please.

[maryrose]

I memorized the letter chart but this time they switched to numbers. Drat!

[anonamom]

So, is it a bad thing you couldn't cheat on the test?

[pagar]

That West Point terrorism study really is scary
especially when you factor in things like gun laws in Chicago mean only the criminals have guns.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-33-million-settlement-cop-misconduct-20130117,0,613731.story

If the link looks the same as my screen, it shows
another Cops robbing drug dealers story up in the right hand corner of the story.

Not reassuring!

[boatbuilder]

Rush Limbaugh asked the other day what the lefties were going to do about undocumented aliens who own guns--do they go on the database?

[pagar]

Boatbuilder, Illinois has started issuing them drivers licenses, so I guess they would no longer be undocumented at least in Ill.

[Danube of Thought iPad]

"The 'Do NO Evil' people and other data miners have a very good idea of what firearms you own, your current ammo stockpile, and how you use them."

I can't speak for others, but that's certainly not true in my case. I have perhaps a dozen firearms that have been in my possession, and in my father's before me, that were acquired before any of this bullshit started. They are as functional and as accurate as they were on the day they were produced. And no one is going to get them except the people I want to get them.

[Mike Cornelia]

I have been a private investigator for three years and don't know where I would be without some of my bugging devices. They make all the difference in my everyday work.

[geTaylor]

Federal studies actually demonstrated that like the mortgage market, "minorities" were denied gun purchases at disproportionate frequencies. Lobbying and legal action by community groups and Federal Authorities should stop that kind of invideous discrimination. ;-)

[Jay]

There is broad public support for expanded the rules on background checks for gun purchases.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything.

Everything that is popular isn't wise.