ID Checks Don’t Drop Crime Rates or Make People Safer
The Brady Background Check system is nothing more than a feel-good measure that deludes Americans into thinking their elected officials are doing “something” to fight crime.
But the real record shows that background checks have NOT reduced murder and crime rates.
First, one of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In its August 2, 2000 issue, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did “not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.”
Second, the General Accounting Office found in 2001 that (surprise!) people can easily use bogus identification to purchase firearms. In every state where the GAO tried, undercover agents were able to buy guns with fake IDs 100% of the time. The logical conclusion, of course, is that Brady background checks are NOT stopping criminals from using such bogus documentation to buy firearms.
Third, gun buyers who are denied in a store can still buy an illegal gun elsewhere. A well-known example occurred almost a decade ago when Benjamin Smith left the Illinois gun store where he was refused a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then murdered two people less than a week later.
Gun control advocates like to focus on the number of people who were denied the ability to buy a firearm. But since many of these people never go to jail, they remain just as free as Benjamin Smith to buy an illegal gun.
And then there’s the fact that many of these “denials” are just flat-out fiction.
In one study, the Indianapolis Star and News reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had overstated the number of people who were denied firearms in Indiana alone by more than 1,300%. Indiana was not an aberration, as the newspaper reported on June 23, 1998, that “paperwork errors and duplications inflated the [DOJ’s] numbers” in many states.
Another study (conducted by the GAO in 1996) found that over 50% of denials under the Brady Law were for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than felony convictions.
Bottom line? Brady background checks have not delivered the safety promised by their backers.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I live in a state, Illinois, where gun owners are REQUIRED to purchase a gun owners' i.d. card. Such mandatory identification cards do ZERO curb the illegal activities involved in purchasing firearms and ammunition. The Illinois FOID card laws are a complete and total waste of time, energy and money . As an experienced (retired) LEO I can tell you that all of these anti-gun groups are completely ignorant and actually do zero to help the police curb crime . The Police Marksman, a magazine for police shooters, has done surveys of field cops which always report that over 95% of the officers are against the futile and stupid efforts of the anti-gun groups. Studies tell us that there are over 20,000 anti- gun laws in place now that are NOT working at all. In fact, since the introduction of the first anti-gun laws, crimes involving the illegal use of firearms and ammunition have grown in their size and numbers. The violence is getting worse and worse because of a lack of control factors against criminals and their sources of initiation. Until you learn to control the criminal, not inantimate objects like guns and cars , you won't reduce the amount of crimes, violence and uselss deaths . Put the onus on the BAD GUYS, not the gun owners. Get back to basics where criminals are concerned.
Glad to hear someone's experiences from behind enemy lines. If logic and reason made a difference, you'd be walking away with the trophy.
Sorry to hear about the 66% state income tax increase they're hitting you with. They have little reason to care what their constituents like or don't like, huh?
ATF abuse connected to U.S. guns "found" in Mexico.
The ATF took them there, and encourages border-area gun shops to make multiple sales to shady characters in order to pad trace statistics. In exchange, the gun shop's books won't fail to "pass inspection."
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/is-project-gunwalker-about-to-bust-wide-open
The problem with this argument is that it is inherently contradictory.
First, you establish that Brady registration laws specifically didn't help reduce crime. Second, you show how the laws are hardly enforced anyways, and how easy it is for people to circumvent the system. Third, you conclude that these these programs in general fail to drop crime rates.
However, if a law isn't being dutifully enforced, how could we definitively say whether or not, given a proper chance, it would result in reduced violence? It sounds like the law exists, but is not being enforced properly, and therefore we are getting no drop in violence, which makes perfect sense because we haven't actually done anything.
Furthermore, you conflate Brady legislation and studies of that specific law with studies that show different forms of gun control that do in fact reduce violence and increase safety.
Finally, you say "gun buyers who are denied in a store can still buy an illegal gun elsewhere." Well, heroin is illegal, and cannot be purchased in a store. Just because I can go get it on the street is not a reason for its legalization, which is essentially your logic here. The fact it's illegal makes it harder and more costly to obtain, which is why it should be illegal for hardened criminals and convicted felons to purchase guns, to put barriers between registered felons and gun purchases.
We shouldn't just give up on laws we're not enforcing properly. We should enforce the laws and determine whether they had their intended consequences, or whether innocent people are being caught up in the system. If they work and have relatively few mishaps, keep them. If not, we can get rid of the laws and try something new. Let's give em a chance to really work before we determine their failure.
"I don't want to take guns away from anyone, unless they're insane criminals."
"First, you establish that Brady registration laws specifically didn't help reduce crime. Second, you show how the laws are hardly enforced anyways, and how easy it is for people to circumvent the system."
Of course, if such laws are difficult to enforce then they probably can't be expected to reduce crime.
"Third, you conclude that these these programs in general fail to drop crime rates."
With the first two premises you pointed out of course they are bound to fail to drop crime rates.
"However, if a law isn't being dutifully enforced, how could we definitively say whether or not, given a proper chance, it would result in reduced violence?"
I think their point was that it CAN'T be effectively enforced, which is why they fail to significantly reduce crime.
"It sounds like the law exists, but is not being enforced properly, and therefore we are getting no drop in violence, which makes perfect sense because we haven't actually done anything."
Hence the rational behind saying the legal measures are pretty much useless.
"Furthermore, you conflate Brady legislation and studies of that specific law with studies that show different forms of gun control that do in fact reduce violence and increase safety."
Which segment was this?
"Finally, you say "gun buyers who are denied in a store can still buy an illegal gun elsewhere." Well, heroin is illegal, and cannot be purchased in a store. Just because I can go get it on the street is not a reason for its legalization, which is essentially your logic here."
If you think there is an accurate comparison between heroin and firearms, then perhaps I can't help you there. Nonetheless, if you want to debate the drug war, be my guest. With heroin legalization, the use doesn't change significantly at all (as seen in other nations: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=981 ), and it also helps to bankrupt criminals who use it as a source of revenue: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9362
At best, such a system of ID checks reduces the number of handguns from law abiding citizens and does little to keep guns out of the hands of criminals since they can rel
"The fact it's illegal makes it harder and more costly to obtain, which is why it should be illegal for hardened criminals and convicted felons to purchase guns, to put barriers between registered felons and gun purchases."
Did you know such an approach actually empowers criminals to stay that way?
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/street-values-rise-gun-thieves-get-bolder
Nothing can stop a hardened criminal, even when it comes to an ID measure that makes law-abiding citizens discouraged at purchasing a firearm.
"We shouldn't just give up on laws we're not enforcing properly."
Unless they are laws that can't be.
"We should enforce the laws and determine whether they had their intended consequences, or whether innocent people are being caught up in the system."
See the above point.
"If they work and have relatively few mishaps, keep them. If not, we can get rid of the laws and try something new. Let's give em a chance to really work before we determine their failure."
They had their chance and cannot be effectively enforced for the following reasons:
1. A huge black market for guns exist where they can be purchased instead.
2. Straw purchases can be made instead.
3. Fake ID's are a factor.
4. These measures are useless if someone has no prior criminal record
5. Such laws also take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who could potentially serve as a deterrent against crime. The reasons are elaborated here:
"Another study (conducted by the GAO in 1996) found that over 50% of denials under the Brady Law were for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than felony convictions."
So in the end this is just another futile attempt to intervene in an area where the government shouldn't.