NY Times Opinion piece starts of good then derails

[AlanM]

Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals

FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.

We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.

Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.

The statement that REALLY stood out for me was this:

That means universal background checks before somebody acquires a gun. New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?

Unless I'm totally unaware of a secret group of gun manufacturers and importers I'm pretty well sure that 100% of NEW firearms are transferred to their owners after they pass some sort of background check.
What that paragraph should say is that 40% of firearms that change hands these days aren't required to, of have a method for, have a background check performed. And this 40% are, for the most part, in the hands of law abiding, non violent, citizens.

[WRW]

It also ignores the prevalent sources of guns used by criminals. Most are stolen or bought on the black market...I have to wonder how many of those bought on the black market were initially stolen and then sold.

Does anybody think mental health programs, other than for the most obvious cases, is truly capable of predicting the tendency to become a mass shooter without a blanket denial of all patients of their rights?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[jmax]

The Harvard study was based on data gathered in I believe 1992 before the background checks were completely implemented in 1994 or 95 using a sample size that was statistically insignificantly too small. What is sad is that study has been debunked repeatedly but it keeps cropping up.

[AlanM]

In response this was posted on another forum where I posted this:

That 40% comes from a 1994 study that has been debunked many times. Background checks had only been in effect for 8 months yet they asked about guns purchased in the past 2 years. Here's more on it from NRA-ILA and how the study is very flawed.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015080 ... e-debunked

Also I meant to add this to my original post and forgot.

Of course, the NY Times doesn't allow for reader comments on stuff like this. I suspect the responses would make their server appear to be under a DOS attack.

[jdonovan]

and even if the study wasn't flawed... and we created a survey that passed stringent review, and used good methods etc...

If private sales are not recorded ( so there is no way to get the true numbers), and you are counting on people to self report when a person taking a survey contacts you...am I the only one who thinks you might get some suspect data out of the answers anyway?