Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
.00009% Success Rate - Definitely a Government Program
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, December 28, 2008

Robb Allen trots out an interesting stat and asks an equally interesting if rhetorical question:
Brady background checks for 2006 - 8,209,900

Total number of convictions from felons trying to buy guns - 73

That's a whopping 0.00009%

I wonder if maybe, just maybe felons don't normally buy their guns from a retail store?
You think that's why they call them "outlaws"?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I am all for second amendment rights, as in defined as ownership and use by individual citizens. I also own several so-called ’assault’ weapons, in addition to other firearms. That being said... Has anyone considered the possibility that the reason not many felons were caught is because of the back ground checks’ deterent effect? Or least deterent from obtaining them at legal, retail outfits. Assumedly they will then put more pressure on other sources for their own weapons, since I do not believe for a second that brady has changed the demand for such things by such people. Perhaps another look at this with some different data sets might reveal more.
 
Written By: Valens
URL: http://
.. Has anyone considered the possibility that the reason not many felons were caught is because of the back ground checks’ deterent effect? Or least deterent from obtaining them at legal, retail outfits.
Have liquor laws kept liquor out of the hands of minors? Or drug laws prevented people from securing drugs? Of course not. But they’re supposed to have a "deterrent" effect, right? In both cases, they’re "deterred" from obtaining them legally, but they still get the stuff.

If you can’t keep liquor out of the hands of minors or drugs out of the hands of just about anyone who wants them with laws, why would anyone believe that gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of felons?

The fact that they may not be getting them legally certainly doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent to me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Have laws outlawing murder prevented murder or laws against writing bad cheques prevented people from writing bad cheques? Bad argument McQ.. A better argument might be based on the cost of the Brady check v. the cost v. alternatives...."Yes, Brady checks stopped 73 felons, for the cost of ’X’, but for the same amount we might have prevented 1,000 felons by adopting an alternative (insert alternative here)."

The fact that socially undesirable behaviors continue, in spite of laws, mores, and taboo’s is NOT an argument against those laws, mores, and taboos, per se.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I was listening to This American Life and was surprised to learn that black people living in inner city ghettos where guns are "banned" do not simply go to the suburbs and buy from a legit store. Nope. They buy illegally from a neighborhood guy who buys from those stores. Seems pretty stupid.

I doubt the hardened criminals even know about the Brady law. Now, that would be an interesting poll for prison inmates...find out what they actually know about deterrence-wise.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"Seems pretty stupid" refers to paying many times mark-up when you could just drive 30 minutes and pay retail.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Seems pretty stupid" refers to paying many times mark-up when you could just drive 30 minutes and pay retail.


Would YOU drive 30 minutes to buy a gun, in Da Hood? IF you don’t have a car and/or you don’t want to go to White Suburbia it makes a great deal of sense?

Put differently, Harun, if you had to take a bus to Hells Kitchen, to legally buy a pistol, would you do it or would you buy the one form someone you may trust more, down the block?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,

I routinely drive 30 minutes to a Costco in order to save money on purchases I could make at the 7-11 that is 50 feet from my house.

Now, why would I not want to do the same to save hundreds of bucks on a gun?

Your example of turn-about is not exactly the same, because I don’t think the gangbanger actually fears anyone in the suburbs.

I guess he could worry about being picked up by the cops as he looks "out of place." He could be valuing the convenience. He could be thinking that his crime will be harder to trace with an "illegal" gun.

I am sure there are valid reasons.

According to the story, ammo is even more profitable to re-sell in the city. Do you have to register to buy ammo?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I wasn’t talking about gang-bangers...gang-bangers KNOW they’re in the system if they’ve been convicted, they arenr’t the ones I’m talking about...

I’m talking about residents, legal folks...I thought that’s who you were referring to. So again, would YOU drive to Costco IF it was in Hell’s Kitchen or in a neighborhood that you perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be hostile to you? Plus note, you DRIVE...many in the inner city can’t drive.

So:
1) If you were talking about gang-bangers it’s pointless, they aren’t going to LEGALLY buy a gun, in Harlem or the Upper East Side, they can’t legally buy a weapon.
2) If you were talking about legal residents of the Inner City, my point is still good, would you TAKE THE BUS, to Hell’s Kitchn to buy a pistol? Because for many inner city residents that’s what the trip to the ’burbs is.... In fact, could you bring, legally, a purchaed fire arm onto Public Mass Transit in many cities? Again, note inner ditty folks don’t drive....

I hate to sound like Erb, but if you’re White Middle Class, you have a lot more options than poorer inner city folks do, and I think you overlook that.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,

I grew up poor, so I realize that a lot of options are closed for them. Still, Wal-Mart is full of poor people getting good deals, and if you are poor, low prices should be an even bigger incentive, no?

I pretty much believe they must have rational reasons for doing what they are doing, though.

Yes, if you don’t own a car then you will consider buying an illegal gun for convenience. However, I have to wonder if car ownership is really that low, especially among people willing to spend lots of money on a gun.

Can you take a gun on the subway? They might have detectors. I think the bus would be fairly safe - how would they find your handgun in your bag? But taking the bus is not cool.

I’m thinking the gangbangers who would want weapons would simply have a young one who has not been convicted to do the buying. But then there are forms, waiting periods, etc. If you need that gun now for protection, I guess you would pay more, no questions asked.

I am thinking of a movie where the inner city guys were buying from a white guy out of his car, then the black guy comes up with a plan for his cousin to buy guns in Atlanta and bring them into the city much cheaper...so it does happen. Though I recall in the movie the city cousin was shocked it was so easy while the country cousin was not.

Seriously, I’d like to know how many criminals are aware of these laws. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. Can’t have deterrence without knowing about it.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Just did some looking. Black car ownership rates are much lower than whites, up to 50% lower in the younger age groups and without much education.

This from ’92, something like only 20% of blacks aged 20-24 had cars. Assume that in a really bad neighborhood that is even lower, so yeah, this probably explains most of the reason they buy locally at inflated prices.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
They buy them at gun-trading shows and on the internet.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://
Would YOU drive 30 minutes to buy a gun, in Da Hood? IF you don’t have a car and/or you don’t want to go to White Suburbia it makes a great deal of sense?
Total straw man. Suburban gun shops are not generally in residential areas full of white picket fences and white-skinned bigots. Because of school zones and local/state gun ordinances, gun shops are in the same commercial/industrial areas as adult book/video stores, liquor stores, junk yards, and autobody shops. I regularly frequent gun shops outside the local city limits and what do you know, there are lots of black folks there buying guns.
Assume that in a really bad neighborhood that is even lower, so yeah, this probably explains most of the reason they buy locally at inflated prices.
No they don’t go buying prohibited arms outside the city limits because they can’t easily buy the guns there legally anyway.

In order to get a gun you must fill out a federal form with your name, address, city, state, etc. and produce ID that can back it up. Buying handguns typically requires additional background checks on the state level that may require additional information. This means that the gun shops know where you live. They also probably know the state and local firearms laws better than you do because it is their business. The gun shop will probably follow any prohibitions in your resident locality because they don’t want to get grief from lawyers inside the city limits. Even if the gun shop lets you start the process, prohibited guns will almost certainly require the additional state forms. That means the state can also shoot you down on behalf of the city.

Now you could get by this with fake IDs or with straw purchases, but then you’re back to buying the guns illegally in the first place.
They buy them at gun-trading shows and on the internet.
Nope. Gun shows are only exempt from waiting periods not background checks. Unless an online sale is between people in the same state, they still have to go through FFLs and fill out all the paperwork.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Total number of convictions from felons trying to buy guns - 73
There’s something fishy about the inference here.

You’re calling this a failure because so few convicted felons have been convicted of trying to illegally purchase guns. But I don’t see where the goal of the program was to attain convictions on people illegally attempting to purchase guns. According to proponents of the background checks, the purpose is to prevent felons from purchasing guns. I don’t know precisely how effective the checks are on that score, but assuming that every felon is entered into the federal database, most felons would fail the background check, accomplishing the intended goal, at least for that purchase, at that time.

Are you opposed to background checks?

Are you opposed to laws that rescind a person’s right to own a fireown if they have been convicted of certain crimes?

I am staunchly in favor of prohibiting people convicted of certain types of crimes from owning guns, for a period of time anyway, and it would seem that the only way to enforce that prohibition would be background checks.

Anyway, I think the original conclusion is faulty. I just don’t agree that background checks are a failure because they don’t succeed in something that was not the primary purpose of the policy in the first place.



 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Does anyone know how much the background check costs? Last month I bought another Model 1911 and the clerk got approval in a couple of minutes. I didn’t notice if he did the check on line or over the phone.

While I was at the counter, a college kid with an out of state license was refused. The Feds apparently allow long gun sales to non residents, but prohibit handgun sales.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
The Feds apparently allow long gun sales to non residents, but prohibit handgun sales.
Yup, handguns must be transferred to an FFL in your state. You then go to him and he does all the checks and state specific work. Kind of sucks because it runs you an extra $25 to $50 to get the second FFL involved.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Captain, actually, to see the true nature of the numbers, click on through to the blog I got them from. Look at how rarely cases are even prosecuted. Look at how many failures there are (denials that were overturned).

Yes, I’m all about removing background checks because they’re stupid. If you’re relying on a Point of Sale device to deny someone the means to cause havoc, you have already missed the opportunity to correct the problem. Guns, like any other object, are easy to come by if you want them (see drugs, illegal).

If you’re staunchly in favor of preventing someone from obtaining a gun, then I suggest you staunchly oppose letting them into public where they can cause harm. Otherwise, simply making it difficult to purchase a legal object for the law abiding is a feel good measure that doesn’t do crap.

If you don’t believe me, look at the areas of the country with the strictest gun control (Chicago, LA) and see who has the highest crime rates using guns. It doesn’t work.

What it does is declare people guilty before being proven innocent, something I was under the impression that liberals abhorred. You see, if the system is down, I cannot buy a firearm period even though I have several on my person at the time, have a CCW, and am not a felon.

The purpose for the background check has nothing to do with safety and only to make it harder for the law abiding to obtain legal property.
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
Yes, I’m all about removing background checks because they’re stupid.


So, by your logic, all narcotics should be legal as well, since, well, people can get them illegally, so what’s the point of stopping them from buying them legally?

Why have a global ban on nuclear weapons sales to terrorists, they can buy them illegally, so what’s the point, it’s stupid?

Immigration, same deal, give up our legal immigration program, why bother, since people can get into the country illegally?

Why enforce any laws, since most people can break them without getting caught, enforcement is a stupid?

Why have laws at all?

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
I’m against gun control laws for the most part, but it seems to me that background checks make sense. And 117,000 denials means the law works. That would be 117,000 felons with easy access to guns if not for the Brady law.
 
Written By: Adam herman
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider