90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Here and Now with Robin Young
Public radio's live
midday news program
With sponsorship from
Mathworks - Accelerating the pace of engineering and science
Accelerating the pace
of engineering and science
Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Gun Sale Background Check Deal Unveiled

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. (left) and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. have struck a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more firearms purchases. (AP)

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. (left) and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. have struck a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more firearms purchases. (AP)

West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey are spelling out details of a deal to expand gun sale background checks to include all commercial sales including those by unlicensed private sellers at gun shows and those online.

Current law requires only licensed dealers to conduct background checks.

The deal would exempt sales between family members and short-term loans between hunters.

It was brokered by two men who are among the most conservative members of their party and it gives political cover to opponents of gun control legislation as it comes up for a key test vote in the U.S. Senate tomorrow.

Wednesday newspaper editorials:

Guest:


Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Doug Sweet

    Robin,  Continuing to talk about “the slippery slope” just helps make the NRA case.  There is no such thing as the “slippery slope” in politics and it should be shelved as a description of consequences of any new rulemaking… at least in the press. 

    If the people who are against universal gun registration think they are “patriots” who will take up arms against an oppressive government think that knowing who has one will weaken their cause are crazy.  The government tracks your car vin number, your social security number, your tax liability…. knowing you have a gun (or guns) will not make any difference whatsoever in whether a revolutionary uprising will take place and be successful.  A patriot who worries about his gun being on a list somewhere, is a pretty weak fighter in the first place.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i dont know about all that nonsense but i did see what happened when such a list of gun owners was printed in the local paper. it was a mess and a perfect example of unintended consequences.  its nice of you  to admit that the endgame is universal registration at the bottom of that slope. thats the step that always preceeds confiscation 

      • Robert Riversong

        There was no “mess” and no consequences – other than secretive gun owners getting upset – when the list was published. And the only ones who believe that registration and confiscation is the endgame are wearing tinfoil hats. The first is illegal in the US, and the second is unconstitutional.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i guess if you don’t count all the people who had their houses broken into.  it made gun owners targets for burglery and non owners targets for home invasion.   Robert the original poster i responded to was advocating for registration tell him to take his hat off.   i always assumed that murdering americans on american soil was unconstitutional but i guess obomas harvard law degree tells him otherwise

          • Robert Riversong

            Point to documentation of this alleged rash of break ins and home invasions – I’ve seen nothing of the kind.

            And the person you were responding to was NOT advocating gun registration,  merely pointing out that it wont hinder “patriots” from engaging in treasonous activity if they so desire.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “If the people who are against universal gun registration think they are “patriots” who will take up arms against an oppressive government think that knowing who has one will weaken their cause are crazy.”
            oh? thats not advocating for universal registration?
            i am sorry you have not followed the story
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264194/Burglars-steal-guns-home-listed-controversial-weapons-permit-map-published-newspaper-just-days-similar-break-in.html

          • Robert Riversong

            Nothing in that comment in any way advocated gun registration (which, by the way, is no less problematic than car registration).

            As is always the case with gun apologists, you chose to ignore the real message in the story: “Police stated that they currently have no evidence of a link between the burglary and the gun map.”

            There are myriad home break-ins and burglaries in NY every day (NYC alone has nearly 50/day), and there is no way to correlate, let alone causally relate, two incidents to the gun permit map (unless you have an agenda that defies logic).

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            calling the folks on one side of an issue “crazy” is clearly advocating for the opposite side. i am sorry you cant see that.
            when did we get federal car registration? mine is registered at the state level just like my guns. 
            absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. that was published just after the breakins and given how hard the police work to solve break ins i would not be surprised if they never got to the bottom of these cases.  unless a crook comes forward and admits he used the list we cant really know but its common sense that making a list of where valuables are kept and publishing it in the paper is a bad idea. it only makes sense to publish such a map if you have an agenda that defies logic.

          • Robert Riversong

            Common sense is the attribute, along with logic and a respect for facts, that gun apologists show a pronounced deficit of.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so you have resorted to name calling and insults.
            i cant see how its common sense to pass a law as a result of an incident that would not have prevented the incident that inspired the change. can you explain that or are you unable to do so as a result of cognitive dissonance? at this point you will have to decide if you want an intelligent debate or if you want to continue represent your viewpoint with insults and name calling

          • Robert Riversong

            Stating the obvious and the empirically verifiable is hardly “name calling and insults”. Though, if the shoe fits…

            You have presented no valid logical argument, no substantiated facts, no third-party links that you did not distort.

            So, it’s clear that there is no opportunity for a rational debate with you. And that is what I’ve universally found with every gun apologist – no logic, no undistorted facts or data, and certainly no common sense.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the discus wont let me reply below but i will take your response to mean that you cannot get past your dissonance to have a grown up debate i will look at your other posts but if you cant come up with rational arguments then i will have to ignore them

          • Robert Riversong

            As is obvious from every post of yours, you refused (or are unable) to engage in rational debate, and are merely intent on sowing confusion. You have ignored every rational argument, every fact, every set of data, every analysis and reasoned conclusion on the issue. So it would be a service to everyone here if you would continue to ignore reason and common sense.

          • Cassie

            What are the Republican’s proposals for improved mental health screening and care? What do they propose to keep criminals off the street? Do the police have any ideas?
            Trouble is, the republican’s and the NRA are opposed to government expansion, so these measures would have to come from the private sector.
            Police are against restriction of assault weapons? Who knew. Other reports say differently.

  • Robert Riversong

    This is one important step toward a more sane gun policy in America, but only one of the many steps we must make, through federal legislation (for a uniform national policy which won’t allow weak gun states to export guns to strict states). For the background check (NICS) system to work, it must be strengthened with funds and penalties for states NOT reporting to the national database, and the restrictions for the mentally-ill, drug abusers and perpetrators of domestic violence must be broadened.

    Too bad, though, that the compromise had to be “sweetened” by forcing states to allow concealed weapons permit holders from other states across their borders with guns. Some states have extremely lax permitting regulations.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so its sane to make a law as a result of a tragedy when the law would not have prevented the tragedy? everyone already has the right to drive anywhere with their legal guns. i had heard that concealed carry permits reciprocity was out of the deal but it would be nice to level the playing field. one state requires no permit to concealed carry a firearm, how is the crime over there?

      • Robert Riversong

        As even these two very conservative senators have made clear, universal registration is only a first step which must include other rational gun-control laws.

        If the Congress had the backbone to resist the NRA lobbyists and do what the overwhelming majority of Americans know is the right thing, and pass an entire package of legislation – including an assault weapon and large-capacity magazine ban – then there will be a significant reduction in gun violence and mass shootings. Even the short-lived and swiss-cheese assault weapons ban of 1994-2004 had a demonstrable effect.

        And strict state gun laws have a high correlation to reduced gun deaths and reduced gun trafficking. CCW (concealed carry) laws have no correlation to  reduced crime, and a small correlation to increased rates of aggravated assault.

        A 2009 University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, found that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          lol you just called crazy for even thinking that universal registration was on the table. why is universal registration a good idea? how will it prevent murders or crimes? whats rational about it?whats funny is that they agreed to universal background checks but you are saying universal registration.
          please cite any study that shows the AWB was effective as you state. the govts own studies showed it was not. lets not forget columbine happened during the AWB.  Lets also not forget that the worst school shooting in history was commited by an individual with pistols with 10 rnd magazines.
          what are the figures for rape in concealed carry states vs non?
          did you read past the headline of that study? its a joke, my dog could do better research than that. the sample group is 40 people in one inner city.  let me know when you get some real figures or facts. the most anti gun “researcher” puts the number of defensive uses of guns at 100,000 times a year. another figure is 2 million times a year. lets imagine the smaller number is correct are 400,000 people shot every year?

          • Robert Riversong

            Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF. (Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003”, Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.)

            During the federal assault weapons ban, the Virginia State Police saw a clear decline in the percentage of crime guns with large capacity magazines, reaching a low of 10% in 2004. After Congress failed to renew the ban, that percentage steadily climbed; by 2010, nearly 22% of crime guns in Virginia had large capacity magazines. – US Dept. of Justice and the Washington Post

            When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department. (“The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore”, 87 Am. J. of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997)

            A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. The same study also found that “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.” (Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,”

            37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired. (Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact, May 2010)

            The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, “On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act”. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, “in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy
          • Robert Riversong

            Facts are not biased, but the way they are used or interpreted can be, and you consistently ignore what your own links make transparently clear.

            The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

            Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.

            In other words, the many holes in the AWB, coupled with the fact that it was not given sufficient time to work (with the millions of grandfathered guns still in circulation), that there was no definitive finding of success.

            The state-by-state evidence, however, suggests a clear pattern of sucess.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol the whole point of the article was that partisans had cherry picked it then you cherry picked it. how do you define success? roughly 300 people a year are shot with rifles “assault” or otherwise. the fbi does not seem to have a statistic on how many of these are legally owned and how many are illegal. if the rifles are not legally available its not that those people will not be shot they will just be shot with illegal rifles or legal or illegal pistols or stabbed or run over or pushed out a window. changing some laws about guns does not affect how many people will decide to kill other people or their effectiveness at doing so. people get guns in jails so i dont believe its possible to keep bad people from getting them anyways if they desire no matter how much you make our society like a prison and how many things are deemed contraband

          • Robert Riversong

            Speaking of cherry-picking and abusing data, the number of non-handgun firearm murders per year, according to FBI data for 2011, is  2,363 (most are categorized as “unstated” or “other”).

            There is little evidence of “substitution effect” where guns are less accessible. And firearms make it far more likely that a momentary or short-term emotional state will result in serious injury of fatality in another or oneself.

            The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart. We see that in events such as the recent school knifing spree in Texas, which killed no one, compared to the shooting sprees which kill an average of 7 per incident.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            are you saying all the unspecified shootings are rifles when the data says its around 300 that are labled as rifles of all types?
            yet somehow knives kill more people than rifles. anecdotes are great, did you see the article about the 11 people shot in a drive by shooting a few weeks ago with no fatialities? i don’t really think that proves guns are safe and you can always find anecdotes to support a point. 
            um i would assume that to count as a “shooting spree” one would have to shoot several people. so there is no data about a substitution effect yet you feel comfortable to assert that it does not happen.
            “And firearms make it far more likely that a momentary or short-term emotional state will result in serious injury of fatality in another or oneself.”
            have you been prevented from killing because you did not have a rifle handy? is this from personal experience? are guns sometimes used in crimes of passion?
             yes
            are they used exclusivly in crimes of passion?
            clearly not.
             another anecdote this makes me think of is the kid who killed his father a few weeks back with a propane tank. should we ban those? what can we ban so that people do not strangle their girlfriends in wayland? the gun is not the problem.  the problem is the people who want to murder others and it does not matter how they do it to those who are dead.

          • Robert Riversong

            No, the problem is fundamentalists, ideologues and extremists – like the global warming deniers – who refuse to (or are unable to) engage in rational debate, but seek only to sow doubt where there is no doubt.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            it wont let me reply below but your tangent is off topic and irrelevent

        • Alstayl7

          What’s an assault weapon????  I could assault a fool like you with a baseball bat.  Are you trying to ban baseball bats as assault weapons???

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            after the texas knifing i was thinking knives would be next on the list for more regulation

          • http://www.facebook.com/alonzo.riley Alonzo Riley

            Knives do have some restrictions, something that pisses people off. But mentioning them is just a distraction tactic. I shouldn’t have to think for you and point out that they are also much less dangerous and lethal. Guns allow distance – both physical and mental – from those they are aimed at. Knives get blood on you. There’s a psychology difference that might be too subtle for you to grasp. Guns are tools designed optimally for one thing. Knives are useful for a wide array of purposes. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            alonzo i know there are absurd restrictions on knives thats why I said more restrictions. dead is dead. a knife can be more or less dangerous than a gun depends on where you are shot or stabbed and how many times and the specific type of weapon used. blunt objects are also pretty deadly. i would rather get shot with a .22 in the leg than chopped with a samurai sword or an ax but only if i had to choose one.
             yes most people cannot defend themselves very effectivly with a knife while any citizen can learn to use a gun to even the odds with even the largest or most well trained or armed criminal(s). i think of the scene in indiana jones where the swordsman demonstrates his proficiency then indy shoots him with his revolver. my grandmother really could not defend her self from a home invader with a knife but with her .45 she has a much better shot(no pun intended). i dont think you know much about guns if you think that you dont get blood on you. self defense does not take place at long range. whats the one thing guns are designed for?  why do i have different ones designed for target shooting hunting and self defense?

          • Robert Riversong

            Assault weapons – AS YOU WELL KNOW – are defined by legislation in the US and the term is commonly understood by the US citizenry because of extensive media coverage of the issue.

            The only reason to raise such an irrelevant question is to avoid rational argument and evade the truth about the crisis of mass shootings in the US, which has every thinking person concerned.

            That there will always be a tiny fringe of very noisy people – like the global warming deniers – who try to sow doubt when there is none, is a given in a nation that gives such low priority to education and knowledge, reason and common sense.

        • Davidjohnson98

          Robert, I am sorry but have to call exception to your statement about CCW correlation to crime.  I
          recently reviewed the GAO (Government Accountability Office) report “States’ Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary across
          the Nation” (GAO-12-717, Jul 17, 2012: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-717 ) (requested by Senator Diane Feinstein D-CA) and compared it to 2010 FBI UCR (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
          violent crime stats (Murder, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault).  The links are posted below.  By looking at the CCW (Carry Concealed
          Weapon) ratio to population by state, and violent crime per 100,000 population,
          it was observed that the crime rate was higher in lower CCW states.  Conversely said, in states with high CCW
          density, there was a lower violent crime statistic. 

          Comparing the
          crime statistic to ccw density, results in a ratio (Crime Rate/CCW
          Density).  California 443%, Delaware
          105%, Maryland 166%, New Jersey 80%, are the top places for violent crime
          success.  It should also be noted that
          each of these states are a “May Issue” state, where CCW permits are greatly
          restricted.  Illinois is a “no issue”
          state and is omitted from the analysis because crime state divided by zero
          results in an error.  While there are
          legal definition issues among the states, a “Shall Issue” state is where,
          unless otherwise prohibited by law, any applicant can apply and receive a CCW
          permit.  A “May Issue” state is greatly
          restricted.  For instance, California is
          a “May Issue” state, but has a clause in the requirement of “Good Cause.”  California Legislature decided to codify that
          “Good Cause” at least for members of the State Legislature, was prima facie
          evidence of good cause.  Evidently, it
          was so hard to get one, that even members of the state legislature could not
          get one, so they created a bill and voted it in that took the decision out of
          the County Sheriff’s hands.

          Comparing the
          Crime Rate to CCW Density where states are a “Shall Issue” versus a “May Issue”
          is also remarkable.  “May Issue” states
          have a target rich environment when compared to “Shall Issue” states, roughly
          10 times richer.

          Average of ratio

           

          Type

          Total

          MAY

          1.615660303

          SHALL

          0.149927962

          Grand Total

          0.328675809

           Senator Diane
          Feinstein (D-CA) requested the GAO report but it is unknown for what
          purpose.  Currently the 9th
          Circuit of Appeals is deciding a constitutional challenge to California’s CCW
          law.  You have to wonder though, next
          time you are at a movie, do you live in the right state?

           Weapon and Crime data can be
          found at these three links http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl21.xls, and http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl22.xls. 

          Census data: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/2010census/centerpop2010/CenPop2010_Mean_ST.txt

           States excluded
          due to lack of comparable data:

          Alabama,
          District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois (no permit), New Hampshire, New York,
          North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont (No Permit is required), and Florida.

          Comparing the
          Crime Rate to CCW Density where states are a “Shall Issue” versus a “May Issue”
          is also remarkable.  “May Issue” states
          have a target rich environment when compared to “Shall Issue” states, roughly
          10 times richer.

          Average of ratio

           

          Type

          Total

          MAY

          1.615660303

          SHALL

          0.149927962

          Grand Total

          0.328675809

           Senator Diane
          Feinstein (D-CA) requested the GAO report but it is unknown for what
          purpose.  Currently the 9th
          Circuit of Appeals is deciding a constitutional challenge to California’s CCW
          law.  You have to wonder though, next
          time you are at a movie, do you live in the right state?

           
          Weapon and Crime data can be
          found at these three links http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl21.xls, and http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl22.xls. 

          Census data: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/2010census/centerpop2010/CenPop2010_Mean_ST.txt

           States excluded
          due to lack of comparable data:

          Alabama,
          District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois (no permit), New Hampshire, New York,
          North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont (No Permit is required), and Florida.

          • Robert Riversong

            First, if you’re going to post such a long comment, have the courtesy to format it so that it’s legible.

            Second, looking at raw data without the proper statistical analysis tools, is meaningless.

            Third, every reliable study has demonstrated no link between CCW and crime rates, except for a small increase in aggravated assaults.

            The NRA cites the research of economist
            John Lott, first published in 1998 and now
            in its third edition, titled “More Guns, Less Crime.

            But Lott’s conclusions are
            controversial – and other academics have criticized his work as either
            simplistic or subject to empirical errors. In 2004, a committee of the National
            Research Council of the National Academies devoted a chapter in a report titled
            “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” examining Lott’s research. The
            report concluded:

             

            “No link between right-to-carry laws and
            changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is
            only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the
            early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth
            rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions
            occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that
            the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change.
            Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee
            concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that
            there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime
            rates.”

            Another sustained critique
            was by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, who wrote a 2003 paper titled
            “Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis.” They said:

             

            “We
            conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in
            establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and
            injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the
            statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and
            extraordinarily fragile.”

            Stanford Law Professor John
            J. Donohue III co-authored a paper in 2012 that concluded “aggravated assault
            rises when RTC (right to carry) laws are adopted. For every other crime
            category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on
            crime.”

             

            “The most consistent finding across studies which correct for… flaws [in other studies] is that Right To Carry laws are
            associated with an increase in aggravated assaults…from a one to nine percent.”

            - The Case for Gun Policy
            Reform, John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
            “It’s difficult to make the
            case that more concealed-carry guns have led to the drop in the national crime
            rate, because cities like Los Angeles, where we have very restrictive
            gun-control laws, have seen the same remarkable drop in crime.” 

             

            - Adam Winkler, law professor
            at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The
            Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America

            In 2004, University of
            Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt examined 10 possible factors – including
            more right-to-carry laws – for why crime fell in the 1990s. Levitt said four
            explanations held up under scrutiny: increases in the number of police, an
            increase in the prison population, the receding crack epidemic and even the
            legalization of abortion (which resulted in fewer unwanted births). By
            contrast, “there appears to be little basis for believing that concealed
            weapons laws have had an appreciable impact on crime.”

          • Davidjohnson98

            With regards to the formatting, sorry, it looked great when I hit post, then went to heck…  Since I have a grad degree and my former stat professor was the Director of Statistical Studies at the Rand Corp, I think that I will “feel good” about my analysis.  It is simply to refute the general comment that there is no correlation to CCW to reduction of crime stats.  Looking at 2010 FBI UCR and the GAO data for corresponding period, simple linear function shows that per population stats, that higher CCW density seems to be associated with lower murder, rape, and robbery (per capita by state).  But, do the math yourself.  I gave the references.  Being a former gun carrying, badge toting person myself, I think that criminals are smarter than we give them credit.  They intuitively do a risk / reward decision on every act they take.  Wolves attack sheep because they don’t want to attack sheep dogs…not enough reward for the risk of getting bit.  So if there are enough sheep dogs out there (disguised as sheep…aka ccw permit personnel) the wolves might be more likely to go somewhere else.  Lott, Levitt, and other socio-economic scientists all try to prove their hypothesis, but again if one data point such as the 2010 data above are inconvenient to their preposition, you have to question it.

          • Robert Riversong

            There are many ways to analyze the data, but the majority of studies indicate no clear correlation, let alone causation, between CCW density and crime rates (or violent crime rates), except a slight positive one.

            The current national debate is about reducing the lethality of mass shootings. While anecdotes are not generalizable, I know of two such shootings in which a legally armed bystander tried to intervene (Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington in 2005 and courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas in 2005), in both of which the interveners were shot (one killed, one survived his coma). In the courthouse case, the killed attempted hero was a firearms instructor.

            But in six mass shootings unarmed bystanders as old as 74 successfully stopped the rampage (1995 City of Industry CA postal shootings, 1985 Springfield PA shopping mall shootings, 1998 Springfield OR Thurston High School shootings, 1993 Long Island Railroad shootings, 2011 Tucson AZ Giffords shootings, 2012 Washington DC Family Research Council shootings).

            Ironically, in the Tuscon incident, a licensed-to-carry gun owner almost shot one of the unarmed heroes,
            mistaking him for the shooter. “I was really lucky,” the concealed gun carrier said later in an interview with Fox and Friends. “I could have easily done the wrong thing and hurt a lot of people.”

            There is also the 2009 University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, that found that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

          • Davidjohnson98

            Robert, I am going to “like” your comment because it is a great civil, intellectual comment / debate.  I am sure that there are smarter people than both of us put together at these institutions, but anybody that disagrees with Levitt, or disagrees with Lott, makes them, by definition , controversial?  Feinstein requested the GAO report, and it did not support where she wanted to go.  Even the GAO report was controversial to her…

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    if its just saying that there have to be background checks at gunshows and online thats fine. we already have those things. the important thing is that a registry is not created. lets just ignore the fact that nancy lanza passed her background checks and this law would not have prevented any of the massacres. a better way to improve the background check system would be to force states like mass to share data about excluded people

  • Robert Riversong

    The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is managed by the FBI, quickly checks the name of a prospective buyer from a federally-lincensed gun dealer against federal and state criminal records to see if he or she is disqualified from buying a gun. Federal law prevents the sale of weapons to people who have been convicted of a felony, have a warrant out for their arrest, have used drugs within the past year, were committed involuntarily to a mental institution or ruled mentally incompetent by a judge, are living in the U.S. illegally, have a domestic-violence-related restraining order against them or have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. People who were dishonorably discharged from the military or who have renounced their U.S. citizenship are also barred from gun purchases.

    Between 1998 and 2010, the Justice Department turned down 2.1 million of 118 million gun applications, most of them people with felony convictions who tried to purchase a gun.

    But some people – including at least one mass murderer, Seung-Hui Cho – who should not have been allowed to buy guns have slipped through the cracks over the same period. Cho was able to purchase firearms through two licensed dealers after two background checks even though he had been declared mentally ill by a judge in 2005. The state never submitted that record to NICS because, while Virginia law at that time required that some mental health information be submitted to NICS, it did not require reporting of orders adjudicating persons to be a danger to themselves or others if they were only directed to outpatient, as opposed to inpatient, mental health treatment. Consequently, Cho was able to purchase a 12-gauge Remington 48 shotgun, a Glock 19 9mm, a Walther P22, and 15- & 10-round magazines (400 rounds of deadly hollow-point ammunition) and use them to kill 32 and wound 24 at Virginia Tech in 2007.

    The problem is that states vary greatly in the amount and quality of information they provide to the database, especially when it comes to mental health issues (the federal government cannot compel the states to share all their records with the database, though it can offer them financial incentives to do so). Only 16 states have laws that require courts to provide mental health information to a centralized state agency for the purpose of transmitting this information to NICS.

    Between November 1999 and November 2007, the number of disqualifying mental health records in the NICS Mental Defective File increased from about 90,000 to about 400,000. However, the U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that there should be at least 2.7 million such records in the database. Hence, the total number of records currently reported to NICS is still a small fraction of the number of persons prohibited from purchasing firearms due to a history of mental illness. In 2005, of the total number of prospective purchasers who were denied following an FBI background check, only 0.5% were denied for mental health reasons

    A 2010 Justice Department report also identified problems with states’ reporting records on people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or who are under restraining orders. Some states do not know how to determine which orders are still active, while others don’t maintain records on restraining orders at all.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yup i have been saying thats one of the things that makes background checks useless and expanding them foolish. good point

  • Lou Dawn

    I truly feel for those people who have lost loved ones. It is devestating to have to endure such pain. But I do not support universal background checks. I am a 26 yr old disabled woman. I am just trying to protect my constitutional right to bare arms. I feel like I must defend myself from my own government! The possability of universal background checks leads to a possability of a universal gun registry and is not worth the risk

  • Robert Riversong

    I just added a fascinating story to my blog, titled The Guns of Columbine, which will shed some light on the problems with the current background check system.

Robin and Jeremy

Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson host Here & Now, a live two-hour production of NPR and WBUR Boston.

April 17 3 Comments

Jane Goodall Plants ‘Seeds Of Hope’

The world-famous primatologist discusses her new book, which is back on shelves after some controversy.

April 17 9 Comments

College Advice From A High School Counselor

Lisa Micele answers listener questions and explains what schools are looking for beyond GPAs and standardized test scores.

April 16 Comment

ER Doctor Looks Back A Year After Marathon Bombing

Dr. Ron Medzon, an emergency room physician at Boston Medical Center, recalls treating victims injured in the bombing.

April 16 36 Comments

Tensions Build In San Francisco Amid Tech Boom

As San Francisco experiences a historic economic boom, some activists say not all city residents are reaping the benefits.