“Great, so even being ineffective, they prevented 1,000,000+ illegal sales from occurring. Sounds like an argument for broadening background checks so that they become more effective. Your argument sums up as: The net has huge holes in it, so don't bother. That's simply bad logic: wow, even with those huge holes the net caught 1,000,000+ fish, sounds like expanding the net or closing those holes (like the private sale loophole) is a great idea then if the goal is to catch more fish.”
butchiez on Mar 1, 2013 at 23:13:12
“sorry for the misspelled words been up two daays working.”
butchiez on Mar 1, 2013 at 23:12:08
“no my point is there are already laws for this data based. They states can keep up with it so should we added another 10k of jobs. Hammers kill more people then assault weapons drunk driver kill 10 times as many people as any form of guns so should we have a data base for those too. Gun control will never work and if you believe in your mind that anyone who owns a weapon will turn it in ya better see if you can find a British uniform because Americans will push back forcing each one of us to choose a side. As far as private sales most states require a paper trail for hand guns but rifles and shotguns which do not require any form of check can be sold. So private sales are covered mostly but I would agree to having BR on hands gun sold privately. Only if the back round check was on the buyer and not the weapon unless it turns up stolen.See thee government having a data base of owners of weapons would be that same as confiscation. all they would have to do is go to someones home and take them That again will force each of us to take sides. Do you think that is worth the price? I don't”
“Oh, and BTW... In general, I actually tend to be on the pro- 2nd Amendment side of things. Background checks tho are basic common sense and don't infringe on a thing.
I will say that I'm happy to see so many conservatives have FINALLY come around to seeing that the Black Panthers were right all along in the 60's: the 2nd amendment protects the *individual's* right to bear arms.”
“Got the statistics from the FBI website. 998,000+ federal denials since 1998. That doesn't include denials in states that have their own background check procedures. For example, in 1998 alone in california (accordin to Ca's AG) 1684 were denied based on federal Brady prohibitions. Almost twice that amount --another 3400+-- were denied on other grounds based on the *State's* required background check. Next question.
And don't put words in my mouth, I haven't made a single one of the arguments you attribute to me. I know fictitious people are easier to debate, but it starts to look funny when you treat shadow boxing like a real boxing match.
As for the argument that only law abiding citizens are affected tho: B.S. The guns in the hands of criminals came from where, exactly? Hint: when it's easier and less expensive for Mexican cartels to arm themselves at American gun shows than to arm themselves in nearly lawless Mexico because of Mexico's gun control laws, there's an issue.”
“It's par for the course, and coldly strategic. Gut agencies like the ATF until they can't be effective, then use that ineffectiveness as an argument against their expansion or existence.
Regardless, given the forced choice of where to spend resources, I'd rather they be spent in ways the chief described, rather than prosecuting fraud cases.”
lordlew on Feb 28, 2013 at 08:15:29
“I know what you are saying! I worked for a company that had safety problems and they just laugh at OSHA. It really a shame to have to do what they have to do, I never knew there 88k background check fails till yeterday, I problem is where do you draw the line in all this? If I lie on my tax forms, it seem the feds have the man power to come after me.”
“No, I believe in simple logic. Even if we assume that NONE of the 88,000 people were turned down or later required to turn in there firearms, that doesn't change the simple fact that 1,000,000 people+ were kept from illegally purchasing firearms from dealers because of background checks.
And the "paperwork" thing was about prosecuting people for lying on paperwork. The small number of prosecutions for that offense has jack-all to do with the effectiveness of background checks.
How "not enforcing" laws about perjury and fraud argues against background checks for gun ownership is a dot you and Graham have yet to connect.”
butchiez on Feb 28, 2013 at 08:40:38
“here is a dot for you to connect. 1 million people who didn't get their permit? I would love to know where you got that figure.since Oct there has been millions of apps applied for. so is that for the past 4 month last 40 yeaars? Gun control only effects people who are law abiding. Now go out and see how many of the millions of gang bangers in this country have permit s for their weapons. Then you point out how Graham is owned by the NRA actually Harry Reid has received much more money fro the NRA then Graham. difference is Graham is trying to protect my rights even if you don't think I should have them while Harry reid doesn't do a clucking thing but translate how he is a Prince. Like i said have fun ranting gun control will never happen to many people get to much money in the pockets from gun manufacturer and Gun Right Groups. to every say a word.”
“Hunh? Okay, yes, people lie on the forms. At least 88,000 of those people were caught. Not many of those were prosecuted. And?
What, exactly, does that have to do with whether or not background checks are effective? At best you're arguing for strcter enforcement of a law that deals with fraud. Sure, whatever. Has no connection to the issue of whether background checks are effective.
And your last point about gun shows is actually the basis of the argument for MORE background checks. A huge number of gun show sales fall in to "private sale" loopholes that don't require background checks... IOW, it's not that they go through because the feds can't process the paperwork, they go through because there's no check in the first place.”
“Which really has little to do with the issue. All Graham's argument does is show that 88,000 people were caught lying on paperwork. Only 44 of those were prosecuted. You still have yet to show what failure to prosecute for a fraud offense has to do with the effectiveness of background checks.
Over 1 million people have been denied illegally owning a gun b/c of background checks. The fact that it doesn't stop everyone means.. well, next to nothing. By your reasoning, no law that's less than 100% effective is worth keeping on the books. Guess we shouldn't have any laws then.”
“Sounds to me like Graham made the point FOR background checks: 88,000 people failed them. 88,000 people, then, can't illegally purchase firearms because of those checks.
Not sure what Graham thinks is relevant about the fact that only 44 people were prosecuted for falsifying paperwork.”
What75ever on Feb 28, 2013 at 06:47:33
“Just because you "fail" a background check doesn’t mean you have done anything wrong or are ineligible from owning a firearm, its not uncommon for recently discharged military personal to “fail” a background check. After a week or two passes they magically pass without doing anything other than go back and fill out the same form again. It happened to my friend when he just got out of the Marines, never had a problem before or after that.”
lordlew on Feb 28, 2013 at 06:18:34
“When you have 88,000 people you can't or won't go after lying on back ground check because they don't have the man power! That tell me with all these cut, we have cut the wrong people. Don't most of the goverment forms have a statement about lying on them. I know know My IRS forms do. Where are the feds in this?”
cantstop on Feb 28, 2013 at 05:41:22
“It's a crime to lie on the applications it is a law so why have more laws if you do not want to enforce the ones we have.
It says on the form that it is a crime and it states the crime and that it is perjury to lie on the form.
Lots of people lie and lots still get through the system.”
“Graham is using a 100% asinine argument. Failure to prosecute for falsifying paperwork has nothing to do with the effectiveness of background checks.
1,000 people try to buy guns.
300 of those should be unable to, given a background check.
Of those 300, 100 lie about their backgrounds, and the lie discovered.
Of those same 300, another 100 lie and aren't discovered.
The remaining 100 of those three hundred are prevented from buying because they told the truth.
Of those 100 liars, 2 are prosecuted for that lying, but all 100 still can't purchase.
Result: the check prevented 200 people from illegally purchasing guns, but some yahoo is babbling on like Graham about the check being ineffective because only 2 people were prosecuted for an unrelated offense.
It may be that background checks are ineffective, but Graham's argument doesn't show that. His argument is totally irrelevant.”
There's nothing illegal about failing a background check. If you filled in the paperwork re: purchase of a firearm and knowingly provided false information, then that is a prosecutable offense.
Graham is trying to use the small number of prosecutions for that offense as evidence that background checks don't work. It's an asinine argument though... the question is, how many people who would have otherwise been able to wrongfully purchase a gun are kept from doing so by background checks. NOT what percentage of people who falsify paperwork are prosecuted.”
butchiez on Feb 28, 2013 at 16:31:56
“from Mexicans to black panthers How about the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. The NICS isn't near as effective as you give it credit for. It is like any other program it is only as smart as the data it is fed. As far as back round checks still today unless your convicted or deemed a danger by a court of law mental status isn't in that base, Under that principle then everyone with AIDS should be public knowledge to because HIV kills more Americans every year then guns of all kind including suicides. with more then 325 million guns on the streets already do you really believe that there is anything that will stop anyone from getting their hands on a guns??? Problem is law abiding citizens aren't the ones killing all these people.”
butchiez on Feb 28, 2013 at 13:04:11
“Mexican buying guns JC what does that have to do with what this is all about? They don't need gun shows they have Obama and the JOD to get guns. Then if you want to be techie about it if you enter any gun sale with the knowledge your are doing it for resale instantly or for someone who can't buy there is already Federal laws about that. If you buy in one state for resale in another crossing state lines for that purpose GUN TRAFFICKING so we need more laws?Your argue is weak your numbers by FBI are BS because they only check for fully auto weapons. Back rounds are done in state for anything but fully auto then it goes first to the ATF then the FBI the even if they approve your state county or town can still not allow it. Your a real heavy weight”
pettlesolove on Feb 28, 2013 at 05:41:48
“Oh, and don't forget, they'll want to cut the budgets on the police departments too I'm sure. Wouldn't make much sense otherwise, right?”
Thurly on Feb 28, 2013 at 05:33:10
“I see that NYT reported the 80K people with previous criminal records were caught lying on their background check form (a felony) and that of those 80K, only 44 were prosecuted. A Justice Department study showed that 28% of people who were denied guns (doesn't say because of previous criminal history) would commit a crime within 5 years. And an article I read stated that there were 1.5 people who rejected over the last 15 years and that it would have been impossible/impractical to prosecute them all. They would have had to prove the person was knowingly, deliberately lying on their form...
I personally don't want to spend the money - 80K prosecutions costing taxpayers how much money?!
The fact that 1.5 million people could not buy a gun through channels that require background checks says to me that background checks work. So, what we need to do, as much as is possible, is monitor more of the sales channels to make it even harder for people who cannot pass checks to buy a gun.”
butchiez on Feb 28, 2013 at 05:32:18
“so you are saying that you believe on 80,000 permits turned down.No there were 80k of permits that people lied on. I guess you believe the term WHAT DOES IT MATTER means your side is right. Out of 80k application with false info only 46 were prosecuted. It is a paper thing as the Chief said. That's right it is a paper thing. What will another background check lead to more PAPER. Right now in the US only 21 states bother to add criminal backgrounds to the Feds data base, Other states that are reporting have back logs of more the 4 years The only thing asinine is your assumptions.,.If your not enforcing the laws on the books more laws do not help anything. But keep ranting because gun control will not happening”
cantstop on Feb 28, 2013 at 05:25:06
“Phreejazz you must not have ever bought a gun. You are asked to answer the questions knowing it is a felony to lie on the form. You know if you are an ex con. You know if you are a restricted person. You know if you are not old enough. You know if you are not a legal citizen. You know if you are on parole or probation. All the questions are clear so it is not a matter of paper work error.
People lie on them hopping the government does not catch it. In some states the government only has 72 hours to do a back ground check. When your form is in the system it puts a date and time on it. If they do not give an answer back in 72 hours than you can have the gun legally. I have had this happen to me twice. The gun shop told me if they didn't get a response from them in 72 hours than come on in and pick up your gun and I did.
So restricted people lie all the time on them hopping they will just go through.
Think of it this way at a gun show on a weekend they can sell 10,000 guns, and that is just one gun show that weekend and there are lots all over the country. The feds can not do hundreds of thousands of back ground checks in 72 hours so lots just go through.”
Saint Cynicism on Feb 28, 2013 at 05:24:04
“The problem is, of course, proving that you KNOWINGLY provided false information. If simply providing false information was enough, knowingly or unknowingly, you could bet we'd see more prosecutions because it'd be a very cut and dry matter.
But I guess the people not actually getting guns isn't enough, we've got to overburden the legal system, too.”
“It's simple: Congress disallowed any funds to go towards the transfer of prisoners out of Gitmo. So you can blame Obama for promising something that the GOP made impossible to deliver, but the failure to close Gitmo rests squarely on the shoulders of congress.”
Stampit on Jan 30, 2013 at 03:32:41
“If Obama is the smartest president we've ever had why didn't he figure that out before he made the promise! Same thing is going to happen with the gun bill. Smart? Doubtful.Leader? NO”
“Button your shirts before putting them in the washer. Remove the shirts from the dryer while they are still hot, one or two at a time, shake a couple of times and hang immediately. Clothing that is left in the dryer and becomes cold will wrinkle.”
“The GOP has done 180 deg. turns on its own policy positions, inluding support for an individual mandate and Cap and Trade, all in the name of defeating Obama. They've given up on principle and pragmatism both, selling all for politics. The result is that they are relegating themselves to claiming a growing share of a shrinking market: old and white.”
gulamon on Jan 23, 2013 at 22:09:46
“Old and white? Like Hillary? Cap and trade would destroy the economy totally. ”
“HuffPo, this new strategy to get clicks by making a new headline on the front page that leads to the same story is getting annoying. Short-term it will work, but you got the followers you did because this WAS a quality website. I've switched my homepage back to googlenews as a result of that and the endless "stories" that populate your pages now that are nothing more than cut and paste jobs. I'm sure I'm not the only one.”
“Perfect way to quicken the fracturing of the GOP.... the xenophobic tea party types and the pro-cheap labor Chamber of Commerce types will be at each other's throats.”
I wasnt here on Jan 3, 2013 at 06:03:48
“It's not just the pro cheap Labor COC types... it's also their good buddies of the Cultural Marxist Left... both are for the same thing... one world labor force... one culture... one planet... where, of course, THEY make the rules.”
Biosynthesis on Jan 3, 2013 at 03:56:31
“Coming into this article I remembered how after the 2012 election Sean Hannity changed his stance on immigration reform to one of support when he realized elections couldn't be won with merely a simple majority of white people and because of this I presumed that the immigration bill wouldn't be met with the same toxic level of vitriol and obstruction that has hid around every corner of Washington the past 4 years. That is I presumed this until I click the [list by] favorites categorization button for this article and read the most popular posts on this article...
How delusional have I become especially after the event of this past week? The intransigent party will make this difficult like passing a healthcare bill for 9/11 first responders was difficult and there will either be a (continuation of) civil war in the Republican party or a Stonewall Jackson revival (doubt it), oh how silly was I to even believe otherwise for a fleeting second...”
realpolitik78 on Jan 3, 2013 at 03:47:28
“and the unions/blue dogs and the vote bribers of the dem party will be at it as well.”