Are Background Checks Effective?

[SecularMotion]

The Pro-Gun Talking Point: Background Checks Are Ineffective. Right-wing media figures often claim that requiring background checks on gun sales is unlikely to reduce gun violence, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

For instance, in a December 2014 article, the editorial board of the Reno-Gazette-Journal claimed that not only would background checks fail to prevent mass shootings, it would also be “unlikely to be effective” at reducing gun violence in general. In April 2013, Kathleen Parker wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post making a similar claim, asserting that expanding background checks has “no practical purpose” because criminals won’t submit to them. And after Missouri repealed a law that required gun owners to prove they had passed a background check, Kevin Jamison, president the National Rifle Association affiliate in the state, told the Kansas City Star: “It’s something we’ve advocated for some time. This makes it easier for people to buy firearms. They don’t have to get permission first.”

What Experts Say: Background Checks Can Help Keep Guns Out Of The Hands Of Violent People. Sixty percent of experts agreed that background checks “can help keep guns out of the hands of a significant number of violent people”:

[center][/center]

https://publichealthwatch.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/new-harvard-research-debunks-gun-lobbys-favorite-talking-points/

[gejohnston]

1. besides the claims made by Hemenway

asking public health types creating bullshit studies, what evidence is there?

[ileus]

2. They've worked pretty well lately.