Background checks for that mythical 40%

One of the most egregious lies being posited as “settled science” by (anti) gun nuts is that 40% of all gun sales are done without background checks. Most of the recent “solutions” to the Newtown massacre, in fact, from New York to the chief clown in Washington focus on the elimination of this “loophole” and demand that background checks be expanded to all buyers, never mind that neither the Newtown killer, the madman in Colorado or even the shooter who killed two firemen in upstate New York would have been stopped by such a check – it makes us all feel safer, and isn’t that the point?

Well don’t settle into an easy slumber just yet. Joe Biden told the NRA during the five minutes he allotted them to hear their views that the federal government “doesn’t have the time” to prosecute people who lie on those forms; out of millions of applications, the government prosecuted just 22 individuals who lied. Not 22%, 22. Either all but an infinitesimal number of gun owner applicants are strait shooting, honest individuals or there is no attempt going on to deter liars. Either way, the registry is ineffective and, other than providing great soundbites for pandering politicians, is completely useless.

So we’re going to expand its reach – feel better now?


Filed under Uncategorized

28 responses to “Background checks for that mythical 40%

  1. cos cobber

    None of these changes would have prevented newtown. Instead, I think the goal here is to slow and gum up the gun buying process in an effort to slow down overall proliferation.

  2. Peg

    WHEN will people learn that so much of what this administration does has little to nothing to do with actual positive results and meaningful reform? It’s all kabuki theatre; smoke screens and masks to convince the masses that Something Important and Special is being done.

    As Rush says – the low-or-no information voters eat it up …. and we all suffer.

    • TheWizard

      You’ve described the democratic party for the last 40 some years, all the way back to the “war on poverty”. The results never matter.

    • Inagua

      ‘”much of what this administration does [is] kabuki theatre”

      True, but it is kabuki theatre to keep the low information voters enthusiastic so the big stuff like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the Stimulus can continue to grow government. My prediction for the next big thing on the Liberal Agenda is a value added tax.

      • A VAT is inevitable by 2018-2020. Our entitlement payments explode then and paying for them will require tax hikes on the middle class of at least 35%. Since such a hike is politically impossible and the middle class rejects cutting those programs, the only recourse will be a VAT that hides the tax.

    • Greenwich Old Timer

      “Low-or-no information voters” – I love it! Such a genteel term for what I prefer to refer to as illiterate morons.

  3. Eductaion system, “infrastructure” improvments et., etc., politics are all about sucking up to voting blocks not governing.
    We need to start with acting and voting in our individaul communites to expose the rampant intellectual fraud and institutional incompetence that have us in tailspin.

  4. AJ

    Here’s an article with a video of a group going around asking anti-gun journalists to post a gun-free zone sign on their front lawns.

  5. Mickster

    That was my point to you days ago – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives haven’t the resources to enforce the previous laws, not to mind the new ones. Members of Congress (particularly those backed by NRA) have ensured the Bureau’s budget is cut over the last number of years. So pass whatever laws you like – makes no difference. What a useless exercise and waste of our time. Next.

    • My real objection to all this is that it serves only to harass non-criminals while doing nothing to curtail illegal use. Which is the point, I guess.

      • Mickster

        True. The real issue is mental health but, hey, who wants to tackle that? No votes there. Wasters.
        BTW – will someone go to see if Mr and Mrs OES are locked in their panic room. Haven’t seen them on here in a while. Someone needs to check.

  6. Anonymous

    Chris, is there anything at all that you think SHOULD be done regarding gun legislation. I do not know what the answer is but I find it hard to believe that there is not some room for improvement in the process?

    • If you mean addressing the mass killers, then bring back involuntary commitments, though the reason they were eliminated in the 60s was because of their gross abuses.
      If you mean reducing the murder of young black men (and Hispanics) by their peers, legalize drugs and end poverty. Good luck with that.
      Mental illness, drug use and poverty have nothing to do with guns. Would that it were so simple.

      • Anonymous

        No I am asking if you think there are any changes at all to the process of registering and buying guns that would be broadly beneficial and would not adversely restrict the rights of law abiding citizens who want to legally purchase guns.

        • Well who knows? The current background checks do work, after a fashion, in at least preliminarily barring ineligible people from buying guns from licensed gun dealers. I’ve been at the gun counter when the clerk calls the national hotline, gives a prospective buyer’s soc. sec. number and other pertinent data and then tells the disappointed homicidal maniac that he’s been rejected. They never give a reason, or none that I could hear, and the guy usually shrugs and walks away. Does he then give up his quest for a gun or does he just go over to Bridgeport and pick one up on the street? I don’t know.
          I assume that there are a few buyers who don’t understand that felons, convicted drunk drivers, wife beaters, etc. are barred from owning guns but most of them must just be liars, hoping that the system hasn’t caught up with them. I mean, can falsely checking off “no” to two pages of questions be attributed to a faulty memory? But because there is no enforcement, no penalty for lying on the application, it’s worth a shot, so to speak.
          So again, we have a background check system in place in most of the country and expanding it to include all fifty states probably can’t hurt. Whether it will do any good is another question.
          On a related point, I think Mayor Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” program by which police stop suspicious looking people and pat them down for guns probably explains why New York has a tenth the gun deaths that Chicago does, even though each has equally strict laws. Unfortunately, Bloomberg’s tactic has been repeatedly challenged by civil rights lawyers and those challenges upheld by many judges. Furthermore, all of the candidates vying to replace Bloomberg in the next election have promised to end the program. So it’s back to carnage.

        • AJ


          “On a related point, I think Mayor Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” program by which police stop suspicious looking people and pat them down for guns probably explains why New York has a tenth the gun deaths that Chicago does, even though each has equally strict laws. Unfortunately, Bloomberg’s tactic has been repeatedly challenged by civil rights lawyers and those challenges upheld by many judges. Furthermore, all of the candidates vying to replace Bloomberg in the next election have promised to end the program. So it’s back to carnage.

          Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lohota supports “stop and frisk”.
          “….“Anyone who says we should eliminate stop-and-frisk really is putting the city in danger,” Lhota said. …”

          What you describe as “[A] program by which police stop suspicious looking people and pat them down for guns” is a very narrow view of “stop and frisk”. What stop and frisk is, is a violation of a persons fourth amendment rights; suspicious looking doesn’t meet the probable cause threshold. What it amounts to is racial harassment, and the arresting of a lot of people for possession of small amounts of drugs; and probably a fair amount of people in possession of folding knives, but then I would believe they are just exercising their second amendment rights. When they target groups like black people who are dressed in normal attire for where they come from, there is no question that they are violating peoples civil rights. And when one group, such as gun owners, lose their rights, then everyone loses their rights.

          As far as the one tenth the guns deaths compared to Chicago, I think that because of the tough and pretty much mandatory sentencing for gun possession in NYC, I think that even most dumb criminals are smart enough to not use a gun. And why should they when a knife, a lead pipe, tire iron, or superior numbers will just as easily do the trick.

    • Anonymous

      You should examine your own implicit assumption that regulations can be perfected and effective in all instances. Starting from that comprehensive falsehood will lead you astray very quickly.

      Next you should examine the conflation of two very separate issues: gun violence and mass shootings. Gun violence is the bulk of the problem, and it is young urban blacks and Hispanics shooting each other with hand guns. If you have a solution to that mess, we’re all ears. Regulations on the law abiding will have zero to negative impact on this problem. Mass shootings, while tragic and spectacular in their instances actually are quite rare. Usually psychotropic drugs for the mentally disturbed are a factor which the press likes to diminish. Can effective policy be crafted here? If it’s gun-centric, the policy will have limited efficacy.

      Additionally, there is a massive cultural divide in this country between the self-reliant foundation values of conservative America, and the flaunted dependence of coastal, urban, progressive America. The urban hipster, the elite liberal, and the union and welfare dependents are proud of their dependence upon and role in the nanny state. The urban progressives believe that government will take care of them, and they favor a state monopoly on violence, the realities of their blighted welfare state notwithstanding. Urban liberals are cocooned and sheltered from some of life’s more rugged realities

      The progressive statists view the self-reliant rugged individualists as obstructions to their ultimate expansion of government power and control. The large percentage of the population which embraces the values of self-reliance often happen to be extremely well armed communities with extremely low to non-existent crime rates. These are the folks the government want to force into dependence, by grabbing control of their health care, by excessive regulation of every variety, and the liberal holy grail, their eventual disarmament. That’s why the bleating statists, Cuomo, Schumer, Feinstein, Obama, McCarthy, DeGette, et. al. derive policy recommendations ostensibly to address mass shootings, but which in reality are designed to punish and disarm this large group of independent thinking free folks.

      Other than blithe media statements, no evidence has been made public that the AR-15 was the actual weapon used at Sandy Hook. However, the AR-15 is the gun Obama most wants to ban. The Medical Examiner made a statement, but ask any Medical Examiner if they can differentiate between 9 mm and 5.56 wounds and they’ll tell you in most instances they can’t. Where are the pictures of the shell casings? And seriously, Adam Lanza shows up at Sandy Hook dressed in camo with a bullet proof vest, carrying an impossible to conceal AR-15, and someone is just going to buzz him into the school with the brand new security system? Seriously? Do some critical thinking.

      The statists want to disarm free America, which is overwhelmingly peaceful and law abiding. The 2nd Amendment provides the dragon’s teeth for the defense of this freedom.

      • Anonymous

        I was the person who posed the question to Chris, I do not want to disarm anybody, least of all myself. I certainly do not believe that regulations can be perfected, I was just curious if there were any improvements that were possible. I did not know about Bloomberg’s stop and frisk program vs. Chicago, I found that interesting.

        “You should examine your own implicit assumption that regulations can be perfected and effective in all instances. Starting from that comprehensive falsehood will lead you astray very quickly.”

    • Zoltan

      Vermont has virtually no gun control laws and no gun crime. Maybe politicians should see why.

      • Anonymous

        Same with rural PA, non-border rural TX, Wyoming, Idaho, NH, and a host of other places. Two shooting deaths in Minneapolis is a grim tragedy; in Chicago, it’s a quiet night.

        They are differences of culture. Some of the problems of urban decay: disappearance of personal responsibility, disintegration of nuclear family, absent fathers, supplanting family as the primary unit of social organization, don’t lend themselves to the centralized one-size-fits-all bureaucratic solutions. In fact, most of the problems were created by the nanny state bureaucrats, e.g. AFSCME requirement that the father NOT be present for the single mother to receive aid.

        “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
        – Albert Einstein

  7. Publius

    Thoughtful people have been buried in this debate but another thoughful piece in today’s WSJ op-ed

  8. AJ

    More from the signal left turn right world of government you can trust in:
    Of course, everyone who gets their news from Disinformation Central, the MSM, knows that vaccines don’t cause autism; that’s why the govenment pays out million dollar settlements to children who fall outside scripted reality.

    “The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, better known as “vaccine court,” has just awarded millions of dollars to two children with autism for “pain and suffering” and lifelong care of their injuries, which together could cost tens of millions of dollars.

    The government did not admit that vaccines caused autism, at least in one of the children. Both cases were “unpublished,” meaning information is limited, and access to medical records and other exhibits is blocked. Much of the information presented here comes from documents …”

    Why is no one in the MSM talking about the psychotropic drugs it seems that all the ”shooters had been taking?

  9. RL

    Right you are Chris, and let us not forget those out there stealing the guns they use in crimes (Lanza) or trading dope or stolen property for stolen guns. Where do they get in Obama’s background check line ? It’s been my experience that the majority of guns out there on the streets being used in crimes are either stolen or obtained as the result of a trade thru illicit goods.

  10. Fred2

    “So pass whatever laws you like – makes no difference. ”

    Actually it does, first you make almost everything illegal in some way, with special emphasis on making it obscure & complex and the penalties potentially large, then you give prosecutors full discretion on whether or not to prosecute, then you make plea-bargaining a real thing ( throwing out the presumption of innocence) and you can accept being guilty of lessor charges or face completely & stupidly disproportionate charges in a court where you can in fact easily lose and judges have mandatory sentencing and cannot easily moderate the excesses.

    Tell me it makes no difference.

    Just look at the jerk of pundit who was waving around a illegal magazine while on TV in the District of Corruption the other night. Prosecutors decline to prosecute, in HIS case, but equally innocent/”guilty” people have had the book thrown at them for the offence.
    Why? If Rush Limbaugh had done the same do you not think that he would have prosecuted?

    Some one actually made the pretty good determination that most of us commit several felonious acts A DAY. To me that argues that the law and the judicial system are irretrievably broken, and yet instead of “legal reform now”, “legal simpplification!”, “throw out immoral plea bargaining”, all I hear is “MORE LAWS PLEASE”.

  11. Seeker of the Truth

    Returning to the oft-heard allegation that “40% of guns are sold without background checks at gun shows or over the internet,” I note that any interstate gun sale, by and to anyone, can only be made now (that is, with no change in the law) through a federally licensed dealer at the receiving end, with a full background check on the receiving person. Second, more than 95%+ of sellers at gun shows are federally licensed dealers, and such dealers may not sell any gun to anyone, anywhere, without doing a background check. So, that 40% number doesn’t pass the smell test.

    To dig deaper, I recommend visiting the blog of Clayton Cramer (see here:, who today shreds the 40% myth. Mr. Cramer is the guy who exposed the liberal-biased book by Michael Bellisles, “Arming America,” as a fraud. See here:

    I am tired of all the lying about gun issues and long for a focus on real problems and real solutions. That will happen when pigs fly, I suppose.

  12. Anonymous

    Eric Holder is still in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress due to his perjury and obstruction of the Congressional Fast and Furious investigation.

    U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen, who works for Holder, and who by law is required to bring the charges against Holder, is refusing to bring the charges per Holder’s orders. Culture of corruption.