It only took six weeks, but the Washington Post finally debunks the “40%” myth.

Surely the New York Times will be next, eh? Anti-gunnists’ favorite number, “40% of all guns are purchased without background checks  is exposed as “stale data” by WaPo. Collected pre-Brady law [which required background checks beginning in 1994] and even then, the numbers were suspect.

Washington Post:

“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.–President Obama, remarks on gun violence, Jan. 16, 2013

“Studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement.”

–“Now Is the Time: The president’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence,” released Jan. 16

“That’s why we need, and I’ve recommended to the president, universal background checks. Studies show that up to 40 percent of the people — and there’s no — let me be honest with you again, which I’ll get to in a moment. Because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct. But the consensus is about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check] system, outside the background check system.”

–Vice President Biden, remarks to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Jan. 17

Regular readers of this column know that we are often suspicious when politicians inject the phrase “up to” before citing a statistic. That’s because it often suggests the politician is picking the upper value in a range of possibilities.

A reader expressed deep skepticism of this 40-percent figure when Obama used it. We were further struck by Biden’s admission he could not say with “absolute certainty” that it was correct. So let’s investigate.

The Facts

The White House says the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago. This study is based on data collected from a survey in 1994, just the Brady law requirements for background checks was coming into effect. (In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, while Brady law went into effect in early 1994.) In other words, this is a really old figure.

The data is available for researchers to explore at the Interuniversity consortium on political and social research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. Digging deeper, we find that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus 6 percentage points.

Moreover, when asked if he or she bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, though as we noted the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.

Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)

Interestingly, while people often speak of the “gun show loophole,” the data in this 1994 survey shows that only 3.9 percent of firearm purchases were made at gun shows.

There is a bit of irony here. While the 40-percent figure appears overstated and out of date, it remains the most cited statistic on the secondary market because foes of gun control have thwarted extensive research on guns. Advocates of gun controls thus continue to rely on a flawed statistic nearly two decades old.

Cook and Ludwig, in a paper that released this month at a gun-violence conference hosted by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that there appears to be little or no impact from the Brady law in reducing the homicide rate, even though government officials (such as Obama) routinely tout the number of people prevented from buying guns because of background checks.

So is there any other, recent data that might provide some insight into the impact of the off-the-books gun market?

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, will report data from a 2004 survey of inmates in state prisons in a chapter in a book titled “Reducing Gun Violence in America,” to be published Jan. 28 by Johns Hopkins Press.

The offenders were incarcerated from crimes committed with handguns, and this is how they reported how they obtained the guns:

Licensed gun dealer: 11 percent

Friends or family: 39.5 percent

“The street:” 37.5 percent

Stolen gun: 9.9 percent

Gun show/Flea market: 1.7 percent

In other words, only a relatively small percentage was purchased from licensed dealers. Obama’s proposal on universal background checks, however, allows for “limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.”


Filed under Uncategorized

18 responses to “It only took six weeks, but the Washington Post finally debunks the “40%” myth.

  1. Anonymous

    Doesn’t fit the narrative, MSM won’t report:

    Neither do the state nullification stories get any press from the 5 pillars of state propaganda: New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC.

  2. Anonymous

    Slightly less than 4% of gun sales are transacted at gun shows, where 95% of the sellers are FFLs.

    • Serious gun collectors, and I am not one, know enough about what they’re looking at to evaluate guns for themselves. The rest of us tend to rely on a particular dealer’s integrity and experience to help us avoid unwise purchases of defective used guns. So it’s not surprising that most sales go through dealers. Why, doing without that resource would be as foolish as buying a house without an agent!

  3. gnawbone

    I would think a criminal would be extremely nervous buying a gun at a gun show with the numbers of police and off-duty officers who are always in attendance looking for a good deal. Flea markets are another deal altogether; we have a few around here that are about 50% thieves’ markets and guns are frequently sold there.

  4. Fred2

    What’s that line: A lie has gone around the world before the truth gets it’s boots on.

    Or in this case, the lie was given a fleet of aircraft and megaphones, and the truth was allowed to slumber on in a dark quiet room with a heaven dose of sleep pills

  5. Brown Eyed Girl

    Well but I am not comforted that nearly 40% of people claim to obtain their guns from “friends and family” !!! That is no objective screening process either, since angry creeps have families too, and other creepy friends….

  6. JRH

    As someone who likes facts, and who has used the 40% number in the past, I’m happy to admit I was wrong. Doesn’t change the fact that even one gun sale without a background check is too many.

  7. Fred2

    “Doesn’t change the fact that even one gun sale without a background check is too many.”

    Best is the enemy of good enough.

    Accept that the process will always have leaks, and those leaks will ALWAYS correlate to the people you’d prefer were denied.

    But, if you try to plug every leak you will cause great problems and inconvenience to a lot of perfectly innocent people.

    And the non-innocent will still be in possession only not inconvenienced unduly because frankly, they are criminals and do not give a fig for some picayune law.

    “If it saves only one life” is a horrid rationale for a law.

  8. Dollar Bill

    It also doesn’t change the fact that since the mid 90’s, the CDC has been forbidden to even conduct basic research into the public health hazards associated with gun violence, a ban that Newt Gingrich’s Congress (bless them!) put in place, and which has hindered sensible fact-based debate on the gun scourge for nearly two decades. One of Obama’s executive orders calls for restoring funding for that much needed research. Oh, tyranny!

    • Anonymous

      If it saves just one child ….

      For the record, I am against the following actions against the gays, but certainly Dollar Bill and JRH would support it if it “saves just one child,” or “saves just one life.”

      Let’s ban ALL gays to prevent another Penn State. Let’s punish innocent law-abiding gays for the actions of Jerry Sandusky. If we can’t get an outright ban on gays, let’s make them all register and then publish their addresses as a matter of public record.

      Let’s have the CDC do some real research on the role of gays as the overwhelmingly primary vector for the spread of the deadly incurable disease AIDs. Let’s make this portion of gays’ health records subject to federal and therefore public scrutiny.

      Again, for the record, I’m opposed to the above policy recommendations which Dollar Bill and JRH support.

    • New York now requires mental health care workers to report all threats of violence expressed by their patients in therapy to the police. Obama has called for the same disclosure on a national level. Psychiatrists worry that patients will now just avoid treatment but in the Dollar Bill world, who cares? This is about guns, goddamnit!

    • Atticus

      There is no such thing as “gun violence”. Guns are inanimate. The violence is caused by violent people, most of whom vote Dem.

      Why do taxpayers’ have to fund such studies? Congress didn’t ban research, just the wasting of taxpayer money.

  9. Libertarian Advocate

    Being a cynic, I’d hazard a guess that most psychiatrists are worried about an impending sharp fall in their income streams.