MO gun homicides spike after repeal of background check law:

[Skjellyfetti]

Missouri’s 2007 repeal of a state law requiring all handgun purchasers to get a license verifying they went through a background check contributed to a 16 percent increase in the state’s murder rate, a new study shows.

The law’s repeal was associated with an additional 55 to 63 murders per year from 2008 to 2012 in Missouri, according to the study to be published in the Journal of Public Health.

Lead author Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said the study provides “compelling confirmation” that weaknesses in gun laws lead to firearms-related deaths.

“There is strong evidence to support the idea that the repeal of Missouri’s handgun purchaser licensing law contributed to dozens of additional murders in Missouri each year since the law was changed,” Mr. Webster said.

The increase in murders began in the first full year after the so-called “permit-to-purchase” (PTP) law was repealed. Crime gun traces revealed a large increase in the number of guns diverted to criminals and in guns bought in Missouri that were recovered by police in bordering states that retained their PTP laws, the study showed.

The study found that the spike in murders following the repeal only occurred for murders committed with a firearm in the state; none of the boarding states experienced a similar increase and the U.S. murder rate actually declined by more than five percent over the time period.

Its release comes a little more than 14 months after the shooting deaths of 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012.

The incident prompted a feverish but ultimately fruitless push by President Obama and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill to tighten the federal background check system. A measure to require increased checks failed in the U.S. Senate last April.

Mr. Obama recently turned to issuing executive actions in an attempt to bolster the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by encouraging states to turn over more of their own records to the system.

Proponents of increased background checks say it’s the easiest way to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, such as criminals and the mentally ill. But opponents argue that increasing the checks would only impose additional burdens on law-abiding citizens and that criminals will just go around the system to get their guns anyway.

Study author Jon Vernick, deputy director for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, agreed that many criminals do not go through federally-licensed dealers to get their guns — but used that point as an argument to increase the number of checks.

“Because many perpetrators of homicide have backgrounds that would prohibit them from possessing firearms under federal law, they seek out private sellers to acquire their weapons,” Mr. Vernick said. “Requiring a background check on all gun sales is a commonsense approach to reducing gun violence that does not infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

Federally-licensed dealers are currently required to perform background checks on all gun sales, while private sellers are not. However, some states — particularly after Newtown — have passed their own laws to require the checks.

Fifteen states require people purchasing guns from unlicensed sellers to pass background checks and ten require buyers to obtain a permit-to-purchase license, the study said.

Researchers used state-level murder data from the FBI for 1999-2012 and controlled for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other state laws in Missouri adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... ntributed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[93henfan]

The conclusions drawn are sketchy at best.

How many of the weapons used were obtained illegally? The article doesn't say. No background check is going to stop those.

Criminals will always find a way to get firearms, regardless of the checks or bans put in place.

I'll leave this here:

[CAA Flagship]

The conclusions drawn are sketchy at best.

How many of the weapons used were obtained illegally? The article doesn't say. No background check is going to stop those.

Criminals will always find a way to get firearms, regardless of the checks or bans put in place.

OK. But what I want to know is: Who do you blame?

[93henfan]

The conclusions drawn are sketchy at best.

How many of the weapons used were obtained illegally? The article doesn't say. No background check is going to stop those.

Criminals will always find a way to get firearms, regardless of the checks or bans put in place.

OK. But what I want to know is: Who do you blame?

Bush.

[CAA Flagship]

OK. But what I want to know is: Who do you blame?

Bush.

WHAT?????

You sure it wasn't someone with a "ein" or "berg" in their name?

[93henfan]

Bush.

WHAT?????

You sure it wasn't someone with a "ein" or "berg" in their name?

Oh right.

The Jews did this!

[kalm]

Background checks probably aren't going to stop guys who open fire over loud music, texting in a movie theater, or egging houses.

[Skjellyfetti]

Criminals will always find a way to get firearms, regardless of the checks or bans put in place.

Background checks probably aren't going to stop guys who open fire over loud music, texting in a movie theater, or egging houses.

Ok?

I don't see why everyone assumes I think background checks will eliminate all firearm homicides.

Yes. There will still be people killed with guns regardless. Correct.

But, I think thorough background checks would reduce firearm homicides. If you want to argue that background checks will not reduce firearm homicides... go ahead. But, if y'all are just going to argue that there will still be firearm homicides at all... I'm done.

Why would background checks be a bad thing?

[kalm]

Criminals will always find a way to get firearms, regardless of the checks or bans put in place.

Background checks probably aren't going to stop guys who open fire over loud music, texting in a movie theater, or egging houses.

Ok?

I don't see why everyone assumes I think background checks will eliminate all firearm homicides.

Yes. There will still be people killed with guns regardless. Correct.

But, I think thorough background checks would reduce firearm homicides. If you want to argue that background checks will not reduce firearm homicides... go ahead. But, if y'all are just going to argue that there will still be firearm homicides at all... I'm done.

Why would background checks be a bad thing?

I don't think they would. Christ, you now have to give pharmacies I.D. just to get some Sudafed for your next meth batch.

[Grizalltheway]

Ok?

I don't see why everyone assumes I think background checks will eliminate all firearm homicides.

Yes. There will still be people killed with guns regardless. Correct.

But, I think thorough background checks would reduce firearm homicides. If you want to argue that background checks will not reduce firearm homicides... go ahead. But, if y'all are just going to argue that there will still be firearm homicides at all... I'm done.

Why would background checks be a bad thing?

I don't think they would. Christ, you now have to give pharmacies I.D. just to get some Sudafed for your next meth batch.

Tell me about it. I'm gonna have to start taking some Walt-like measures.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think they would. Christ, you now have to give pharmacies I.D. just to get some Sudafed for your next meth batch.

And, what does that have to do with a background check?

It's not the same thing. For fuck's sake.

If the restriction being looked at was simply an ID to purchase a gun... I doubt there would be much effect at all. Again... we're in agreement. But, that's not what we're fucking talking about.

If you had to pass a background check to purchase Sudafed... it would reduce its use in meth.

I have a feeling I know what is coming next... so, I will preempt: NO. IT WILL NOT COMPLETELY ELIMINATE IT. I AGREE.

[kalm]

I don't think they would. Christ, you now have to give pharmacies I.D. just to get some Sudafed for your next meth batch.

And, what does that have to do with a background check?

It's not the same thing. For fuck's sake.

If the restriction being looked at was simply an ID to purchase a gun... I doubt there would be much effect at all. Again... we're in agreement. But, that's not what we're fucking talking about.

If you had to pass a background check to purchase Sudafed... it would reduce its use in meth.

I have a feeling I know what is coming next... so, I will preempt: NO. IT WILL NOT COMPLETELY ELIMINATE IT. I AGREE.

They use your ID to make sure you aren't buying in large quantities. So it's kind of like a background check but most people don't object to.

[SDHornet]

Ok for background checks for guns and ID checks to buy Sudafed...not ok to check ID or check registrar roles for voting record/info corrections.

[Skjellyfetti]

They use your ID to make sure you aren't buying in large quantities. So it's kind of like a background check but most people don't object to.

"kind of like a background check"

I guess... in that they're looking solely at your background of purchasing pseudoephedrine.

Not nearly the same as a background check, though.

If you could be denied purchasing pseudoephedrine if you:

Convicted of a felony. Convicted in any court of a crime which in punishable by a term of more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.
Indicted for a crime punishable by more than one year.
A fugitive from justice.
A user of illegal drugs or an addict.
Involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
An illegal alien.
Dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
Renounced your U.S. citizenship.
Subject to a restraining order for threatening a family member.
Convicted of domestic violence.

It would be more difficult for meth cooks to get it.

Again, not completely eliminate... but, I don't see how it would not reduce it.

Fuck, just domestic violence would eliminate most people interested in meth cooking.

[Skjellyfetti]

not ok to check ID or check registrar roles for voting record/info corrections.

And, I've said that when?

[SDHornet]

not ok to check ID or check registrar roles for voting record/info corrections.

And, I've said that when?

You were thinkin' it.

[AZGrizFan]

The problem with background checks is that they (the state) will use them as a database to confiscate the guns from law abiding citizens when the bubble goes up.

No more purchases of guns for me on the grid. Everything will be off-grid from now on.

[Cap'n Cat]

Conks and guns, guns and Conks.

[Grizalltheway]

The problem with background checks is that they (the state) will use them as a database to confiscate the guns from law abiding citizens when the bubble goes up.

No more purchases of guns for me on the grid. Everything will be off-grid from now on.

Why not just buy a cabin up here and live completely off the grid, tough guy?

[Cap'n Cat]

The problem with background checks is that they (the state) will use them as a database to confiscate the guns from law abiding citizens when the bubble goes up.

No more purchases of guns for me on the grid. Everything will be off-grid from now on.

Why not just buy a cabin up here and live completely off the grid, tough guy?

LMAO thinking of Z as any kind of "tough guy"!! Fuckin' poseur!

[ASUG8]

I'm guessing the guy normalized the data for the depression-like conditions during exactly that period to validate his conclusion.
Background checks MIGHT help some, but as I'm sure it was said IMO a huge percentage of these killings come from folks who skirted the system, stole weapons, bought black market firearms,etc. - all things that the most vigilant background check programs can't possibly catch.

[AZGrizFan]

The problem with background checks is that they (the state) will use them as a database to confiscate the guns from law abiding citizens when the bubble goes up.

No more purchases of guns for me on the grid. Everything will be off-grid from now on.

Why not just buy a cabin up here and live completely off the grid, tough guy?

I already have a cabin up there completely off the grid. And you're not welcome when the bubble goes up.

[Grizalltheway]

Why not just buy a cabin up here and live completely off the grid, tough guy?

I already have a cabin up there completely off the grid. And you're not welcome when the bubble goes up.

[89Hen]

Conks and guns, guns and Conks.

I'll bet you own/have owned more than I have.

[93henfan]

Conks and guns, guns and Conks.

I'll bet you own/have owned more than I have.

Conks without guns.