Heroin now kills more people than guns:

[bcking 3,157]

To elaborate more fully, according to the study the following states have those three laws already (and this provides a more elaborate definition for what they meant by each one. I was just making a short hand version for my original post) -

 

Ballistic fingerprinting or microstamping of semi-automatic handguns (firearm identification)

Firearms can be identified by ballistic fingerprinting Microstamping is required on semi-automatic handguns

MD, NY, CA

Universal background check

Required for all firearms or handguns only

Handguns only: CT, HI, MD, NJ, PA; all firearms: CA, RI

Ammunition Brady check

Ammunition Brady check or permit is required to purchase ammunition

IL, MA, NJ

 

 

You  might be interested to know though that after multivariate analysis, "closure of the gun show loophole" (states with universal background checks were excluded from this group, since it would be redundant) did not reduce firearm mortality. In fact it was associated with a small increase in firearm mortality. aRR 1.09 (95% CI 1.03 - 1.15) 

Edited March 14, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

28 minutes ago, bcking said:

1 and 3 already exist nationwide? Of course they exist at the state level, that is how the study compared states that had the laws and those that didn't.

Not sure what you mean by nationwide.  Almost every state in the nation uses the FBI to conduct a BG check.  States are allowed to conduct their own, but why, when the NCIS already exists?

[bcking 3,157]

56 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Not sure what you mean by nationwide.  Almost every state in the nation uses the FBI to conduct a BG check.  States are allowed to conduct their own, but why, when the NCIS already exists?

You said universal background checks already exists. That is not true in most states, since not all firearm purchases require background checks.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

You said universal background checks already exists. That is not true in most states, since not all firearm purchases require background checks.

Can you point to the states which do not require background checks?  Every state I know of requires one for FFL sales, but not private sales.

 

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/background-check-procedures-state-by-state/

 

Haven't had time to read all 50 yet,  but every state thru the letter "India" does them.

 

[Boiler 45,519]

Colorado require a background check.

 

Bu then Colorado already has very strict laws.

[Sonea 138]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

To elaborate more fully, according to the study the following states have those three laws already (and this provides a more elaborate definition for what they meant by each one. I was just making a short hand version for my original post) -

 

Ballistic fingerprinting or microstamping of semi-automatic handguns (firearm identification)

Firearms can be identified by ballistic fingerprinting Microstamping is required on semi-automatic handguns

MD, NY, CA

Universal background check

Required for all firearms or handguns only

Handguns only: CT, HI, MD, NJ, PA; all firearms: CA, RI

Ammunition Brady check

Ammunition Brady check or permit is required to purchase ammunition

IL, MA, NJ

 

 

You  might be interested to know though that after multivariate analysis, "closure of the gun show loophole" (states with universal background checks were excluded from this group, since it would be redundant) did not reduce firearm mortality. In fact it was associated with a small increase in firearm mortality. aRR 1.09 (95% CI 1.03 - 1.15) 

Micro-stamping may be required by those three states but in actual fact no microstamping is actually available in the firearm industry due to cost and other technological problems.

 

California knows this and in requiring microstamping on hand guns has created a handgun ban on all newly manufactured handguns. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

You said universal background checks already exists. That is not true in most states, since not all firearm purchases require background checks.

Ran across this while looking for something else.  Not what we are talking about exactly, but indicates the effectiveness of the BG check system already in place:

 

Quote

According to a study by the Department of Justice, between 1994 and 2014, federal, state, and local agencies conducted background checks on more than 180 million firearm applications and denied 2.82 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers. To date, the background check system has blocked over 3 million firearm sales to prohibited purchasers.8

Citation:   Karberg JC, Frandsen RJ, Durso JM, et al. "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2013-2014." Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bit.ly/2lSEIEu. Published June 2016. Accessed February 15, 2017. Data for 2015 and 2016 were obtained by Everytown from the FBI directly. Though majority of the transactions and denials reported by FBI and BJS are associated with a firearm sale or transfer, a small number may be for concealed carry permits and other reasons not related to a sale or transfer.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Ran across this while looking for something else.  Not what we are talking about exactly, but indicates the effectiveness of the BG check system already in place:

 

Citation:   Karberg JC, Frandsen RJ, Durso JM, et al. "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2013-2014." Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bit.ly/2lSEIEu. Published June 2016. Accessed February 15, 2017. Data for 2015 and 2016 were obtained by Everytown from the FBI directly. Though majority of the transactions and denials reported by FBI and BJS are associated with a firearm sale or transfer, a small number may be for concealed carry permits and other reasons not related to a sale or transfer.

You can't measure effectiveness without a denominator. You need to know how many total firearm sales would be blocked if ALL firearm sales had background checks (including private sales between individuals, such as those that can occur at gun shows).

 

A big number sounds great, but the denominator could be like 10 million and then our current system would have only identified 28%. Wouldn't be that effective.

[Boiler 45,519]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

You can't measure effectiveness without a denominator. You need to know how many total firearm sales would be blocked if ALL firearm sales had background checks (including private sales between individuals, such as those that can occur at gun shows).

 

A big number sounds great, but the denominator could be like 10 million and then our current system would have only identified 28%. Wouldn't be that effective.

I know the number in Colorado, would that help?

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I know the number in Colorado, would that help?

Well for an individual state the better way would be pre/post. Do we have that for Colorado? Pre-universal background checks vs post.

 

Confiscations though doesn't necessarily translant into less mortality. That's why the study I had posted just looked at overall firearm mortality and which laws each state had.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

You can't measure effectiveness without a denominator. You need to know how many total firearm sales would be blocked if ALL firearm sales had background checks (including private sales between individuals, such as those that can occur at gun shows).

 

A big number sounds great, but the denominator could be like 10 million and then our current system would have only identified 28%. Wouldn't be that effective.

Just guessing, based on your earlier comments, that you have never been to a gun show?  If not, it’s not very common for private sales to be held there.  Can it happen?  Sure.  You could see me walking around with a gun in my hand, and offer to buy it, and I could sell it.  But the vendors who register and set up at a gun show operate just as they do from home, or a brick-and-mortar store.

 

It’s been over a year since I attended a gun show, but at that particular one in GA, there were zero private sales going on from what I could tell.

 

”Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its “instant” background check (which often takes days to complete). As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States — the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.”

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, bcking said:

Well for an individual state the better way would be pre/post. Do we have that for Colorado? Pre-universal background checks vs post.

 

Confiscations though doesn't necessarily translant into less mortality. That's why the study I had posted just looked at overall firearm mortality and which laws each state had.

You keep talking about “universal”.  How much more universal can a criminal background get than via the FBI/NCIS?  Are you suggesting there is a better way of doing the checks?  The only two I am aware of are the state method or the FBI method.

 

Are you instead referring to the lack of BG checks in a private sale?

[Boiler 45,519]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

Well for an individual state the better way would be pre/post. Do we have that for Colorado? Pre-universal background checks vs post.

 

Confiscations though doesn't necessarily translant into less mortality. That's why the study I had posted just looked at overall firearm mortality and which laws each state had.

How can you know how many sales would have been blocked when there was no system to block them.?

Edited March 15, 2018 by Boiler

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

You keep talking about “universal”.  How much more universal can a criminal background get than via the FBI/NCIS?  Are you suggesting there is a better way of doing the checks?  The only two I am aware of are the state method or the FBI method.

 

Are you instead referring to the lack of BG checks in a private sale?

Universal as in all firearm sales, including private.

12 minutes ago, Boiler said:

How can you know how many sales would have been blocked when there was no system to block them.?

No I mean how many were blocked before and after going to universal.

 

Or did colorado go from none to universal? No period where only Brady law applied?

Edited March 15, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

18 minutes ago, bcking said:

Universal as in all firearm sales, including private.

 

Ok, now we are on the same page.

 

Not saying that won’t make things better, because it would, except... the people against whom we WANT it to work (criminals) will still not comply with the rules.

 

As an example, many states claim that all private sales should have a BG check.  But I don’t want to pay for one when I sell a gun, and really don’t have to.  So I choose not to.  But I DO inject some due diligence by only selling to people I know well.  And even then, I have a bill of sale, DL, address, and have them sign a statement that they are not known felons nor are they in any way prohibited from buying a gun.  Is it bullet proof?  No.  A friend could lie.  

 

Now put me in a state that requires private sales BG checks... how does the state mandate it’s happening?  How do they know I have the gun, or am selling it?  Only HONEST people will follow the law.  But if I were a criminal, or selling to known criminals (because said guns command a higher price and I can make a profit, for example), I would just ignore this little tidbit of a law.

 

That’s my theory on why private sales checks will never work.  Just as I can sell prescription drugs on the street with no oversight, the same thing goes for guns.  Or just as I can fake a bill of sale to reduce the taxes I pay on a private sale car.   Always a way around it.  A criminal will always find a way around a law, I think you’ll agree.