Universal background checks do little to stop mass shootings, study finds


#1

A new study is questioning long-held government claims that background checks on private gun transfers could help stop mass public shootings.

The report, published by the Crime Prevention Research Center on Jan. 2, argues that not only are background checks expensive, but that they have failed to thwart mass public shootings.

The findings come as President Obama on Tuesday formally announced plans to expand background checks and make other changes to America’s gun rules through executive action. The White House has aggressively pushed for background checks following mass public shootings.

foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/universal-background-checks-do-little-to-stop-mass-shootings-study-finds.html


#2

A gun rights group is against gun control. That’s unexpected.


#3

Some guy with mayhem on his mind goes to a gunshow to purchase a weapon, they are doing 100% background checks, he walks out and has time to decide mayhem isn’t what he wants to be remembered for after all. How does anyone know what was averted?

Given the relatively few mass shootings (yes, even one is too many). But there aren’t thousands a year here… A blanket statement that the checks don’t accomplish anything is unsupportable.

If you feel the need to own a gun anonymously, I question your need to own a gun period.

And yes, I own guns, and all required a background check.


#4

If that is the simple truth, we need to do more, not less…wonder how that would set with the NRA?


#5

I don’t know if universal background checks are ineffective or not but I still think that they are a good idea.


#6

You nailed it.

I don’t understand all the uproar about background checks…its simple, you have a choice, if you want guns you need to submit to a background check…if you don’t want to submit to a background check you must not want guns.


#7

Had background checks been in place, some of the shooters in past events would have still been able to purchase the weapons. Plus there is an easy way around BG checks if someone is truly committed to doing something…just have someone else buy the gun, or better yet, go to craigslist/ other classifieds and buy it from a private seller.

One of my best friends had to go into a nursing home recently, his house and all his possessions were sold off to pay bills, he had a large collection of guns, which his brother put on an online classified ad…most of them were bought by someone in MI, they arranged for shipping and wired the money…SOLD, without the seller even meeting the buyer, in this case, they sold quickly because the price was so low, but really, the buyer could be anyone, who knows what their intent is for the guns?


#8

Actually, the claim is supportable and common sense correlation. All the recent mass shooters passed background checks. Background checks are more useful in keeping guns away from felons, who may kill and rob but aren’t the mass shooter type.

People who commit mayhem usually only do it once. Then they are dead or in jail for life.


#9

You missed my point - you cannot tell how many decided not to even try. Admittedly, its as difficult to sustantiate as the tottally ineffective statements

Gun control will be a no win game for a very long time I fear. Maybe need to report how many guns already owned/purchased?


#10

If I’m not greatly mistaken, under the new regulations nobody other than a licensed gun dealer will be able to sell on Craigslist or any other way, and also do a background check.

Basically, it outlaws private sales of guns. Possibly gifts too, but I’m not sure of that yet.


#11

That may be the next step, just like machine guns. You can buy one in the U.S. if you pass the background check and pay a hefty fee. But the machine gun has to be traceable through lawful sales back to the manufacturer. There are undoubtedly a lot of machine guns in the U.S. brought home by soldiers, particularly in WWII. Those can never be legalized, no matter what, because their history is not traceable.

If one of these times the government declares the same rule for other guns, millions of guns will be outlawed and their owners criminalized. Lots of guns are bought each year, but a lot are gifted, inherited, bought privately, etc. and their history is not known.


#12

A woman goes to a gun show to purchase a firearm to protect herself from her psycho ex-boyfriend, but is denied because her background check shows a minor drug arrest from her college days. When she gets back home, her psycho ex-boyfriend is waiting and strangles her. How does anyone know what could have been averted without the background check?

Why is it the government’s business if a law abiding citizen decides to buy a firearm?


#13

You missed my point. Obviously ALL OF THEM decided not to commit mayhem. It’s proven in the facts of every recent mass shooting.

Is your whole case resting on the possibility that maybe in the future there might be one person who commits mayhem that’s a felon? When such felons chose to rob, they are already proven to obtain their guns illegally, not through gun shows.

Sorry, only Pro-Gun Control crowd is allowed to use the ‘If It Would Save One Life’ argument. That’s the rules (lol)


#14

From my read of the BATF regs that just came out, that does not seem to be true. The only way it would be is if you were representing yourself as a business.

Posting a Ruger 10/22 for sale as “Brendan” on a website would be fine. Posting the listing as “Brendan’s Guns o’ Rama”… less so.

The firearms laws were already pretty well defined as to who needed a license and who did not, as were the court precedents. An Executive order could change neither.

Here are the new regs ( and pretty much the same as the old ones)

atf.gov/file/100871/download


#15

In light of the realization of the power possessed by the black markets, how is society to enforce or otherwise make full use of a requirement for Universal Background Checks? The unfortunately truth is that in the absence of Universal Gun Registration that a Universal Background Check is all but meaningless. This can’t be overemphasized, so let’s repeat it. In order for a UBC to have any meaning, it requires gun registration and this is a problem. It is a problem because, as the gun community correctly argues, registration leads to confiscation.

There is only one reason for the government or law enforcement to know who has what guns. That they can take them when it has been decided that Joe and Jane Citizen are no longer allowed to have a particular gun and to prevent Joe or Jane from refusing to comply with the forced ban.


#16

The NRA tells us changing the status quo of gun laws is a violation of the rights of Americans, and therefore should not be tolerated on principle.

If that is a non-negotiable, it implies that because abortion is legal, changing the status of abortion laws is a violation of the rights of Americans, and therefore should not be tolerated on the same principle.

That sort of equates support of the NRA with support of Planned Parenthood.

Is it just me, or does anybody else see the dilemma of non-negotiable support of the 2nd Amendment as an affront to God and Church?


#17

OK, lets face facts:
There are currently as many or more weapons in private ownership in the US as there are people. Elimination, confiscation is just as impossible as rounding up undocumented(Illegal) Aliens.
Second, a small percentage of firearms are used in most of the violent crime in this country, and many of those weapons were stolen/bought illegally. In the past 3 days 18 handguns have been stolen in my little corner of the country in 2 gun shop burglaries. Probably by the same individual(film of him in 1 shop, good face shot) and probably already on their way up north.
Third, we have banned several substances/items in this country before and how did that work out?
Alcohol and illicit drugs are still quite plentiful. And how about that drunk driving battle? Check out the NTSB report on the annual deaths due to drunk drivers. Anybody trying to close Budwiser?

You cannot legislate morality or sanity. You can lock up the criminals and medically assist the mentally ill, but that’s it. Laws only affect those who obey the law. Period. And the segment of our society that these new rules are designed to control could not care less. Kind of like a gun-free zone sign stopping an active shooter. Not So Much.

I have no problem with background checks. I do have a problem with knee jerk reactions and needless legislation/restrictions as a form of mass punishment do to a small segment of societies disregard for the law.

And while I am at it, If the President is SOOOOO Concerned with the deaths of innocent children, How about shed a few tears for the 150,000+ children Plan Parenthood murdered last year!


#18

I have heard it said “Never bring a knife to a gun fight” - well, it makes common sense that you should never count on paperwork in a gun fight!


#19

Well, the difference is that the constitution specifically protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms with the specific limitation that the government shall not infringe upon it.

Which makes interesting reading in the various court cases where the discussion is how the founding fathers understood the right, since it pre-existed the constitution and was not established by it. There were restrictions, so the discussion is really-- what are reasonable restrictions. Which I won’t argue here.

There is no right to an abortion in the constitution. No provision for it at all. The Roe vs Wade decision was, as I understand it, an upholding of the right to privacy in medical matters between a woman and her doctor. That even included whether or not she aborted a child as a woman had a right to privacy about medical decisions over her body.

So, an explicitly enumerated core right vs an inferred right.


#20

Great post!

Im sure the powers that be have their strategy all planned out…ultimately leading to a nationwide confiscation, you are right, that is the ONLY logical reason there is for registration.

Thankfully there are soooo many guns out there ‘under the radar’, and if a nationwide ban was put in place, it would definitely spark a civil war unlike anything ANY nation has ever seen before. unlike the last civil war, this would be fought in every single city in the country, there would be no safe areas.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.