Posted on 01/05/2016 6:02:24 PM PST by richardb72
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.
After the December murders by a husband and wife terror team in San Bernardino, Calif., Obama told the nation there were steps the U.S. could take to “improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently: commonsense gun safety laws, stronger background checks.â€
The study, however, states that the initial data on universal background checks does not confirm the claims of supporters and the White House.
“Despite the frequent calls for expanded background checks after mass public shootings, there is no evidence that background checks on private transfers of guns would have prevented any of the attacks that have taken place since at least 2000,†the study states, adding that there is no statistical evidence that proves the mass public shootings are “rarer in states with background checks on private transfers.†. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Background checks are the cover story for keeping a database of gun owners. Although these days, there are so many different required “filings” to buy a gun, the point is rather moot.
No kidding.
this is not a question of statistics, its a question if is there evidence that each mass shooting could’ve been prevented if each guns involved in shooting were registered?
I live in CA where all sales are thru a dealer (FFL) with background checks and 10 day waiting periods. I cannot count the number of background checks I have had over the years, but trust me, they must work. I haven’t shot anybody. Without all the background checks, there is just no telling what I may have done.
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
..18 U.S. Code Section 926: subsection (a)(3)...
Are you kidding? That’s just another law for Obama to modify or disregard with the usual impunity.
They can’t be universal until Barack Obama’s background is checked.
Remember how quickly the feds had the information on where the San Bernardino muzzie killers’ guns were purchased and by whom?
They didn’t get the information from Carnac The Magnificent so they must have used a gun purchase/registration records data base of some sort.
You know - the kind of records prohibiited by 18 U.S. Code A 926: subsection (a)(3).
It’s not about stopping shootings.
It’s about using fear and intimidation to set up the coming tyranny.
And you voted for it America. :)
Looking back forty eight years, the claim, by the anti gun crowd, was that we could stop shootings if we registered all guns and banned the import of 5 shot bolt action army surplus rifles and foreign made Saturday Night Specials, ban the “mail order” of all firearms, prevent all guns from being bought across state lines, ban military surplus hardware from the US.
So the 1968 Gun Control Law (a version of the 1938 Nazi Weapons law)was passed.
One of the first people to be raided was an arms dealer in Tulsa, Oklahoma who was busted for selling new imported MILITARY EQUIPMENT, namely, musket gun flints for flintlocks.
***but trust me, they must work.***
Yep. California’s background checks didn’t prevent Pat Purdy from getting a handgun. He PASSED the background check with flying colors even after just being released from a mental hospital, then went to Oregon and purchased an AK-47. Then he went and shot up the Stockton School yard.
It also didn’t prevent to moslems from buying legally handguns, then obtaining AR-15s from a friend and shooting up a Christmas Party a few weeks ago.
Gun control is like trying to solve drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.
No... But they do make it easy to keep a universal registration of guns and their owners.
Stopping “mass shootings” is not the Nazi DemocRATS’ objective. Disarming the American people is their real goal. The comment was made on FNC this morning by one of the female hosts that Obama’s Fuehrer Directive was a “first step.” She didn’t say a “first step” towards what. The old frog in the kettle of water on the stove thing.
Yeah because if you want to shoot people up, you will not inform the government of your intention to do so.
It might not be “required,” but dollars to donuts it’s “allowed” under any number of perfectly legal scenarios. Such as ones referenced by the last sentence in your quote.
I thought there was a mandatory $10,000 fine if you were caught voolating this section of the FOPA but I couldn’t find any specifics on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.