Arrest rate at Virginia gun shows increases

[allingeneral]

So, the arrest rate for denied background checks is up to 27 percent last year. This is still only 71 arrests out of over 43,000 background checks performed (and 263 denials).

What's to brag about here? 263 denied background checks out of 43,000+? This equates to a meager 6 tenth of a percent (0.0060) of transactions in 2013 that resulted in an arrest. Sounds pretty insignificant to me.

RICHMOND, Va. — The percentage of people arrested after being denied permission to buy firearms at Virginia gun shows has increased over the last two years.

Virginia State Police began tracking gun show transactions in 2011. The Richmond Times-Dispatch (http://bit.ly/1jhVAjk ) reported Monday that 10.6 percent of the people who were denied permission to buy guns that year were charged with an offense related to being someone legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. That increased to 12.4 percent in 2012 and to 27 percent last year.

Thomas R. Baker, a Virginia Commonwealth University criminologist who analyzed the data for the newspaper, said the numbers are a positive sign for both gun control advocates and gun rights supporters.

“This clearly shows an upward trend in enforcement,” Baker said. He said that is good news for gun rights supporters who have been calling for stricter enforcement of existing laws instead of passage of new ones.

On the other hand, gun control advocates who favor universal background checks “can point to the effectiveness of background checks for keeping guns out of the wrong hands,” he said.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/arr ... story.html

[trailrunner]

I'd like to know how many of those denials were hardened street criminals trying to buy a gun to use in a crime, and how many were due to some marginal blemish on the buyer's record or even a clerical error.

[OakRidgeStars]

But.. but... gun show loophole!

[WRW]

Yeah, the arrest rate is going up because the news media advertises that a "gun show loophole" exists.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

Yeah, the arrest rate is going up because the news media advertises that a "gun show loophole" exists.

Said the spider to the fly.

[MarcSpaz]

What am I missing? It's misdemeanor to lie on the form, but it's not illegal to try to buy a weapon if you are prohibited by law.

And the people with arrest warrants... somehow I am not see that as relating to the gun show purchase attempts. They would be arrested regardless of where they were found. That is like finding a wanted felon in D&D and the new article being titled "Arrests Rate At Dunkin Donuts Increases".

[AlanM]

What am I missing? It's misdemeanor to lie on the form, but it's not illegal to try to buy a weapon if you are prohibited by law.

And the people with arrest warrants... somehow I am not see that as relating to the gun show purchase attempts. They would be arrested regardless of where they were found. That is like finding a wanted felon in D&D and the new article being titled "Arrests Rate At Dunkin Donuts Increases".

Actually lying on a 4473 and signing it is a federal FELONY.
Read the bolded text just above the signature block (16) on the form:
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download ... 4473-1.pdf

[MarcSpaz]

I didn't even think about the federal laws. I was commenting on the Code of VA since it was VSP, not BATFE making the arrests. You do bring up a good point.

[sdcharger]

43,000 background checks resulting in 263 denials. Which is .006 = 6/1000th

So 6 of every 1000 applicants is denied a purchase. Sounds like the background checks might be a decent idea

[Remek]

Yes, and let them generate a constructive registry so they can confiscate? Sorry, but SCREW THAT!

Plus, who says the private sellers don't take more care than the dealers.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Remek]

hmm, troll? Or alphabet agency plant?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[sdcharger]

Sorry to disappoint you I'm not a troll just trying to have a conversation. Would you care to elaborate on legitimate reasons it's a bad idea to background check someone prior to them purchasing a firearm? I'm not convinced it is a good idea, but they did deny 6 out of 1000 applicants. Since some people are not allowed to purchase a firearm, so how else do you stop this?

[MarcSpaz]

IMHO... I have read surveys (no idea how real/accurate they were) that say a majority of gun owners do not object to background checks. I don't know about "most", but I know some are ok with it. That may be a big part of the problem, and I'll explain why...

Those people who reportedly got denied; we don't know how many of them were because of inaccuracy in the FBI NCIC database, how many were because someone mistakenly left something out or mis-marked a form and how many were hardened criminals.

Out of all the people that got denied, do you really believe that they are not going to get a gun one way or another? I hope not. Criminals; like really bad guys that we don't want to have gun... yea, they are getting them anyway, but illegally off the streets.

I can't tell you how many weapons I have seen get confiscated after being smuggled into the US. When I was in Honduras, there were guys selling full-auto AKS-74U's for $150 US dollars. Outside of a 30 second stop at the US/Mexico border, there was nothing stopping me from bringing dozens of them into the US to sell on the black market.

Bottom line... laws are like security. Just an illusion. It isn't a question of how safe you ARE; its a question of how safe you FEEL. Gun laws are feel-good measures to make the people feel better while the elitist further their cause.

So, its pretty hard to get the government to honor our rights when ignorant people that are part of the "pro-gun" group say anti-gun laws are okay.

[SHMIV]

6 denials per 1000 applicants is hardly a problem. It certainly doesn't warrant the inconvenience of background checks.

As has been previously stated, felons who want guns will get guns. That's just how it is.

Further, I suspect that your name goes on a permanent federal list every time you submit one of those applications. Yeah, I know that there is a law against that, but we've all seen what the government thinks of laws, lately. They manipulate them to their current desires, or flat out ignore them.

I prefer to take my chances with armed felons.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Remek]

The problem is not the background check at all. It's got to do with 1. Charges to have the check done, 2. The building of a registry, and 3. My right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

1. If you are selling. $100 gun, and they charge you $25 or more to do it, hasn't the government just devalued my gun?

2. They ONLY want this as part of a registry so they know who has what. And, if they get that info, do you really believe they won't use it? I yakked on another thread about this, if you do a search.

3. While a company does not have rights under the constitution, I do. My right shall not be infringed. While a company may not care who they sell to, I also have conscience. I will not sell to people I consider bad. In fact I talk to many sellers at shows who are selling privately. None of them will sell without ID, and either a CHP or recent sale form to the same person. Good people sell their guns at shows, not criminals. So, it can be surmised they are also more careful than a dealer would be.

I can keep going on this subject, but giving this away is most DEFINITELY a step toward losing our rights. You can also tell this is true, because as you've even admitted, it's not a problem, and they still want the law. If it's not a problem, why do you think they want a law against it?

Then there's the case of selling to,people you know, or inheritance, or gifts to friends. Do you want to pay a tax to give your son a gun? Your wife?

This is a baaaaad idea all the way around, if you are interested in keeping your guns.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

I agree with Remek...

Criminals will have their weapons one way or another. LAWS ARE ONLY OBEYED BY CITIZENS!

"Illusions of Safety"- Fight Club.

Like TSA, or The PATRIOT Act, or NSA watching every kinda conversation, or "DUI check points" (AKA Stop-N-Peaks), I know they want to stop DUI's, but if you saw the amount of arrests from "Chimmel Searches" from DUI checkpoints? You'd want them stopped. Seriously.

"Have you been drinking tonight sir? What's in the backseat in the Gym Bag? Okay sir need you to pull over, and get out slowly."

[0ne5hot]

..."Have you been drinking tonight sir?..."

the last road check I went through I told the cop "Yes I have Officer...I had about 2 bottles of water and a gatoraide. It's so thoughtfull of you to make sure citizens are staying hydrated tonight."

the cop's responce "get out of here"

My response "Okay...Have a nice night and stay HYDRATED officer"

[sdcharger]

I think it is delusional to think every single one of us who has posted on a forum isn't on somebody's list somewhere. You really think the NSA supercomputers can't spit out names, emails, phone numbers, and addresses for every single person who has posted on the internet about how to fix a certain gun, or how their rights cannot be infringed? I mean seriously, they have the means to pull the information almost instantly. They don't need some stupid registry to do it.

I used to background check people who applied to work at a major school district. We denied about 20/1000 applicants based on the results of the background check. After they were told what we were looking for. You want child molesters driving your kids to school? You want felons buying a handgun at the show and making us all look stupid when the media runs all over it? Sure, you could buy a gun on the street, but is that an excuse to ignore the legal way of doing it?

The cost, I agree, is onerous, and should be born by the taxpayers who demand the background check.

I'm not saying it's ideal from a philosophical sense, I'm just not hearing arguments that would convince someone who is not a 2nd Amendment supporter that background checks as a whole are a waste of time.

[MarcSpaz]

Criminals who want to kill, will. If they can't get a gun legally, they get one illegally. If they are too stupid or impatient to find one on the streets, they use something other than a gun and kill anyway.

Not a single life is saved. What is so hard to understand?

[MarcSpaz]

Here is something else to think about.

Since 1934 only two murders have been committed with legally owned automatic weapons. The DOJ counts one of them because they are not entirely sure if one of them were illegally owned or not, but error on the side of not.

Since 1934 there have been less than 10 crimes committed involving legally owned automatic weapons. Most of the crimes were simple paperwork related, such as not notifying the ATF/BATFE that the owner and weapon have moved domiciles in a timely manner.

Since DOJ has been keeping track, less than 0.7% of all weapons seized during arrests have been automatic weapons.

The annual average of legally owned semi-automatic weapons used in crimes (including murder) is less than 1%.

The annual average of legally own semiautomatic firearms seized during arrests is less than 1%.

All of that means that, since 1934, of all violent crimes involving a firearm (including murder) more than 99% of those crimes were committed with an illegally obtained firearm.

Now some people would sit back and say "See, gun control works. Just look at those numbers." While other sit back and say "See, gun control doesn't work. Just look at those numbers."

The only problem with the "gun control works" theory is, it has been statistically proven repeatedly, with federal government data, that as gun laws become more relaxed, violent crime rates drop; and as gun laws tighten, disarming the good people, violent crime rates increase.

So, the data and real-world results prove undeniably that gun control doesn't work. Well, okay, you can deny it, but you are just lying to yourself.

All of this information is available via DOJ and/or CDC. If you don't believe it... look it up.