# Are gun-background-check claims true?



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

It's amazing how someone makes up a statistic that has no basis and the media runs with it President 
Obama cites it.......

The claims
• About 40 percent of gun transfers in the U.S. take place without going through a licensed dealer.

• In 2012, millions of guns were sold with no background check.

Even a 5th grader knows that in order to state the above there would need to be a tangible record of such transactions...

Fact Checker: Are gun-background-check claims true?


----------



## high pockets (Apr 25, 2011)

Short answer --- NO!


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

We all know that gun control isn't about safety. It's about control.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> We all know that gun control isn't about safety. It's about control.


And even if it WAS about safety, the numbers are still wrong.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

as with most other statements cited as "fact" by an individual or group with an agenda, despite what they claim, YOU CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT IS SAID. People arguing for specific issues have a way of distorting facts to meet their agenda. For instance, "gun free zones prevent crime". Yup, definitely proven to be true by examples such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and multiple other locations. 

GCBHM said it correctly, gun control isn't about safety, it's about control. We should all resist efforts at centralized, "one size fits all", control.

what is the most revealing to me about these high profile political and media types who support gun control is, if we don't need guns to protect ourselves and our families, why do they all travel with armed security forces? Are they any better than the rest of us? Clearly, it is nothing more than saying to us, "do as I say, not as I do", which defacto means that they consider themselves "different" than the masses. I never have trusted anyone who puts themselves above everyone else.


----------



## slayer61 (Aug 4, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> what is the most revealing to me about these high profile political and media types who support gun control is, if we don't need guns to protect ourselves and our families, why do they all travel with armed security forces?


What he said^^^^^


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

They admitted the numbers were wrong and Colorado passed their check based upon this number and now they see the real number was 7% and they didn't have a crisis like they thought. Gotta pass the bill to find out what's in the bill "right"?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

...But the _real_ issue is that there is no background-check law that will ever keep guns out of the hands of criminals and persons of evil intent.
Why is that?
Easy: Because criminals and evil persons do not obey the law. The definition of the word _criminal_ is "one who does not obey the law."

Make all the laws you want: Your laws will not affect crime. Laws affect only the law-abiding.

Anti-criminal laws only serve to mete out punishment, when _and if_ the criminal is caught. Laws do not stop crime.

Only fools and Progressives believe that making laws affects crime and criminals.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> <snippage>
> Laws do not stop crime.
> 
> Only fools and Progressives believe that making laws affects crime and criminals.


Laws DO make it easier to see who is a criminal and who isn't. Having NO laws would make everything OK...... (Yeah, I know that's simplistic - it was to make a point)


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

When I was a kid, guns could be purchased at gas stations, drug stores, hardware stores, swap and shop stores, department stores, and a host of other places. And there were no background checks, no waiting periods, and no forms to fill out. And guess what? School shootings were unknown, mass murders were so rare the were exceptional news items, and kids took their guns to school for practice and for after school hunting or just plinking. Yes I lived in a different time but there was more freedom. It was a given that you were responsible for your actions.

Do gun control laws lower crime? Hell no they don't. If anything, they increase it. Just look at Washington, DC before and after its ban which took place in the 1970's. I submit that this is not at all unique. Yes I had a lot more freedom than do Americans of today and that is most sad.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I, for one, believe we have entirely too many laws. Laws are things legislators pass to get their names in the books and pad their resume, but most are pointless and worthless.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> When I was a kid, guns could be purchase at gas stations, drug stores, hardware stores, swap and shop stores, department stores, and a host of other places. And there were no background checks, no waiting periods, and no forms to fill out. And guess what? School shootings were unknown, mass murders were so rare the were exceptional news items, and kids took their guns to school for practice and for after school hunting or just plinking. Yes I lived in a different time but there was more freedom. It was a given that you were responsible for your actions.
> 
> Do gun control laws lower crime? Hell no they don't. If anything, they increase it. Just look at Washington, DC before and after its ban which took place in the 1970's. I submit that this is not at all unique. Yes I had a lot more freedom than do Americans of today and that is most sad.


Look at how laws helped the sale of alcohol during prohibition. Look at how it has helped the sale of illegal drugs. Look at how DUI has not been curbed. Look at how passing legislation banning texting and driving has not done a thing to stop people from texting and driving. Just the same, banning guns has only made matters worse, just exactly as you said, SB.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

a lesson should be learned from all the laws passed since 1964 aimed at eliminating poverty in America. Lyndon Johnson started the ball rolling with his "Great Society" agenda, massive social welfare programs (Medicaid) and Aid to Families with Needy Children, yada, yada, yada. All these laws, programs and regulations, and guess what? Poverty in this country is worse now than it has ever been. I believe it is more a function of the lack of personal responsibility for one's life than anything else, and the laws passed by government make that option much easier for those wishing to abdicate their responsibility to do just that. Used to be if you were hungry, you worked to either be fed or make the money to buy your food, now you just go to DSS and sign up for food stamps. Sad indeed. No one has any responsibility for anything in this day and age (that is unless it is someone with money who happens to screw up and then some gutter rat attorney gets hold of him in a personal injury lawsuit). Point is, you just can't legislate and think that the problem is solved. Works that way with poverty and also with guns.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Actually, Johnson's War on Poverty brought people into the dole programs who would otherwise have actually worked for a living.
By doing so, the War on Poverty vastly enlarged the statistical group labelled as "poor," rather than shrinking it.
Thus, at least statistically speaking, the War on Poverty created more poverty than this country had to deal with previously.

To paraphrase the Commonwealth of Virginia and John Wilkes Booth, _Sic semper Progressivis_.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> a lesson should be learned from all the laws passed since 1964 aimed at eliminating poverty in America. Lyndon Johnson started the ball rolling with his "Great Society" agenda, massive social welfare programs (Medicaid) and Aid to Families with Needy Children, yada, yada, yada. All these laws, programs and regulations, and guess what? Poverty in this country is worse now than it has ever been. I believe it is more a function of the lack of personal responsibility for one's life than anything else, and the laws passed by government make that option much easier for those wishing to abdicate their responsibility to do just that. Used to be if you were hungry, you worked to either be fed or make the money to buy your food, now you just go to DSS and sign up for food stamps. Sad indeed. No one has any responsibility for anything in this day and age (that is unless it is someone with money who happens to screw up and then some gutter rat attorney gets hold of him in a personal injury lawsuit). Point is, you just can't legislate and think that the problem is solved. Works that way with poverty and also with guns.


Thanks for reminding me how un-liberal this place is..

I was beginning to forget.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Thanks for reminding me how un-liberal this place is...


We're not _un_liberal: We've got you.

But most of us are *il*liberal. :yawinkle:


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> We're not _un_liberal: We've got you.
> 
> But most of us are *il*liberal. :yawinkle:


Hah!


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

shaolin said:


> They admitted the numbers were wrong and Colorado passed their check based upon this number and now they see the real number was 7% and they didn't have a crisis like they thought. Gotta pass the bill to find out what's in the bill "right"?


Last thing I heard, the private transfer background checks in CO for the first year were just over 4 percent of the total, but when you remove certain other required checks that are combined to get that number, the private checks alone are probably even lower than 4%.

Link>>> Impact of Colorado law expanding gun background checks vastly overstated - Boulder Daily Camera

"In total, there were about 311,000 background checks done during the first year of the expansion in Colorado, meaning the 13,600 checks between private sellers made up about 4 percent of the state total.

Further, the private review figure includes the number of checks done at gun shows, which have been required for years in Colorado. The law also requires checks for online sales, which is new for transactions within Colorado. But such vetting was already required on interstate sales. Still, interstate activity is tallied in the private background check total.

Taken together, this indicates that the number of newly mandated background checks that have been performed is even lower than 13,600."

Picked up this info from comments on a related article at TTAG:
Link>>> ?An estimated 40% of gun transfers take place without going through a licensed dealer in the United States, including sales online and at gun shows." Not true! - The Truth About Guns


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I used to be a liberal in my youth but then I grew up. Had a close friend who was borderline communist... until he went in the Army and was stationed in Korea as an MP. He told me that turned him around in two weeks. Funny how reality bites.


----------



## Spokes (Jun 1, 2008)

I would not believe one word that comes out of the W.H.
Or for that matter any government agency.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> Thanks for reminding me how un-liberal this place is..
> 
> I was beginning to forget.


I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I don't care what you do as long as you leave me alone and I don't have to pay for it. It seems unfair to me having made the choice years ago not to have children, to be saddled, through taxation, with the fiscal burden of having to pay for anyone else's children, whether or not they are willing to work, or are basically content to just be a social parasite. I feel no mental need to take care of the world, I have enough difficulty taking care of my wife and mother who lives with us. Beyond that, have all the kids you want, just don't ask me to pay their medical bills, food costs, housing costs or anything else. To me that is ultimate taxation without representation. If you want to put it plain and simple, do I feel an obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves? Yes, I do feel a basic humanitarian obligation in that regard, but I feel no obligation to take care of those who "WON'T" take care of themselves. And that includes allowing them to have children that they can't pay for. Have all you want, just don't send me the bill, figure out how to pay for them yourself. I work in a government agency that provides housing for the poor. There are truly those that can't figure it out on their own and will never have the means, mentally or fiscally, to do so. There are also many in the system who are scamming the system and laughing up their sleeves at the rest of us. Because we are required by rules and regulations to give them the benefit of the doubt, we can't throw their a##es out in the street the first, second or even third time we catch them violating the rules of the programs. It is extremely frustrating to constantly be exposed to this segment of our society, and in my opinion, it is growing by leaps and bounds every day to the detriment of all of the rest of us. IMO, we are in the final days of the Roman Empire, or some such analogy. We have gone too far to the liberal side of policy and it's making those of us still working and paying our taxes ask "why?'


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> I used to be a liberal in my youth but then I grew up. Had a close friend who was borderline communist... until he went in the Army and was stationed in Korea as an MP. He told me that turned him around in two weeks. Funny how reality bites.


it's very easy to be a "theoretical" communist until the tax collector comes around and you have to pay while your "comrade" next to you doesn't. Hardly seems fair in the real world, does it?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I don't care what you do as long as you leave me alone and I don't have to pay for it. It seems unfair to me having made the choice years ago not to have children, to be saddled, through taxation, with the fiscal burden of having to pay for anyone else's children, whether or not they are willing to work, or are basically content to just be a social parasite.
> <snip>


It was once posited that those who do not wish to pay for the education of others' children should be forced to live with the inevitable results of that.

And that's as political as I wish to get today.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> It was once posited that those who do not wish to pay for the education of others' children should be forced to live with the inevitable results of that.
> 
> And that's as political as I wish to get today.


Hasn't that already happened, regardless of whether or not anyone wished to pay for it? How could it be much worse? We have already bred a generation of morons with no skills, no social graces and no concerns. How could it possibly be any better than that? The hypothesis you quote is almost an oxymoron. We are all living with the results of social programs that don't work and that are creating an entire new generation of government dependents who we are all going to have to pay for, whether or not we want to pay for them. So what you postulate has already happened, and in a big manner. It all goes back to personal responsibility and taking care of one's own family. Without that duty in society, you end up with something like we have today. A generation of underachievers with a belief that the system owes them an existence. Remember the recent "occupy Wall Streeters"? What right do they have under any law to any private corporate assets? Yet they all believe somehow they are entitled to a share of the wealth. That comes directly from the head Socialist/Communist party leader in this country, Obama.

a question for you. do you believe we all have an obligation to pay for children who have entered the nation illegally and are not citizens of this country, much less those who are simply born here to parents who entered the country illegally? If you do, then I suggest that we need to get rid of all immigration laws and just throw the doors open to everyone. Basically that is what has happened already anyhow.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

I'll get back to you tomorrow - it's still today here.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

a well considered reply. These arguments, at times, seem unsolvable.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> a well considered reply. These arguments, at times, seem unsolvable.


Hey, I told you I wasn't going to get political today....


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

lol, just trying to chill for the weekend, huh?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> lol, just trying to chill for the weekend, huh?


Somewhat, but I'm actually supposed to be working here and now. 

A little pissed that my "reg'lah" range date for Sunday is cancelled due to the Christening of my latest grandkid. But I suppose we have to wet his head sometime...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

RK3369 said:


> it's very easy to be a "theoretical" communist until the tax collector comes around and you have to pay while your "comrade" next to you doesn't. Hardly seems fair in the real world, does it?


Yep. In my friend's case, I believe his embracing communism was largely in a youthful retaliation aimed at his parents... who were fine people. He just had some pent up issues. He has turned out to be quite well adjusted and a productive individual.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> Somewhat, but I'm actually supposed to be working here and now.
> 
> A little pissed that my "reg'lah" range date for Sunday is cancelled due to the Christening of my latest grandkid. But I suppose we have to wet his head sometime...


nothing more important than family. enjoy the time you have with them.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Yep. In my friend's case, I believe his embracing communism was largely in a youthful retaliation aimed at his parents... who were fine people. He just had some pent up issues. He has turned out to be quite well adjusted and a productive individual.


I do believe people enter a different reality when they leave home, go to work and all of a sudden begin to realize that nothing in life is fair, especially when you have to work for it. That realization changes people's minds in a hurry, usually.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> nothing more important than family. enjoy the time you have with them.


Believe me, I do. Ferquentrly leave work early if there are grand-kids at home to torment (read: sit on couch and read with)


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

"We're the government, and we're here to help!" :-/


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> "We're the government, and we're here to help!" :-/


The scariest words you could wish not to hear!


----------



## VitalStatistic (May 15, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> When I was a kid, guns could be purchased at gas stations, drug stores, hardware stores, swap and shop stores, department stores, and a host of other places. And there were no background checks, no waiting periods, and no forms to fill out. And guess what? School shootings were unknown, mass murders were so rare the were exceptional news items, and kids took their guns to school for practice and for after school hunting or just plinking. Yes I lived in a different time but there was more freedom. It was a given that you were responsible for your actions.
> 
> Do gun control laws lower crime? Hell no they don't. If anything, they increase it. Just look at Washington, DC before and after its ban which took place in the 1970's. I submit that this is not at all unique. Yes I had a lot more freedom than do Americans of today and that is most sad.


Well said Brother. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. We used to take our guns to school during hunting season in our cars/trucks since we were hunting before school and probably going out again after school. We were bullied by older, bigger kids too, but none of us thought even once about taking the gun out of the truck to shoot anyone, for goodness sakes, that would have led to a strong paddling and coach's plexiglas paddle had holes drilled in it...


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> When I was a kid, guns could be purchased at gas stations, drug stores, hardware stores, swap and shop stores, department stores, and a host of other places. And there were no background checks, no waiting periods, and no forms to fill out. And guess what? School shootings were unknown, mass murders were so rare the were exceptional news items, and kids took their guns to school for practice and for after school hunting or just plinking. Yes I lived in a different time but there was more freedom. It was a given that you were responsible for your actions.
> 
> Do gun control laws lower crime? Hell no they don't. If anything, they increase it. Just look at Washington, DC before and after its ban which took place in the 1970's. I submit that this is not at all unique. Yes I had a lot more freedom than do Americans of today and that is most sad.


I hear what you are saying, but it's tough (if not impossible) to compare the years of past with those of today.

Sort of an apples and oranges comparison. I truly believe that as civilization progresses, things tend to get worse.

There comes a tipping point at which it will become painfully obvious. I don't think that we are there yet, but we're awfully close. So close in fact, that all the trees are looking like a forest.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Making up facts, passing laws to pass laws are scams to fool people into thinking they care about them while stealing their liberty.


----------

