HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » FBI gun background checks...

Tue May 5, 2020, 10:47 AM

FBI gun background checks remained high in April during coronavirus pandemic

The FBI conducted nearly 3 million background checks associated with the sale, transfer or permitting of firearms in April, making it the fourth highest month for background checks since the bureau began keeping statistics in 1998, according to new data released by the agency.

Figures from April were down from the record-shattering spike of 3.7 million FBI background checks in March 2020, but still higher than checks done in the first two months of the year.
The states with the highest number of background checks conducted were Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, Florida and California.

Under US law, federally licensed gun dealers must run checks on every buyer, whether a purchase is made in a store or at a gun show. A buyer presents his or her identification to the seller, fills out a form from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which lists the buyer's age, address, race, and any criminal history and then the seller submits the information to the FBI for checks against databases in order to ensure a criminal record does not preclude the purchase.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/politics/april-background-checks-guns/index.html

So, what will the gun-banners say when the gun violence rate doesn't increase?


8 replies, 8220 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply FBI gun background checks remained high in April during coronavirus pandemic (Original post)
PBC_Democrat May 2020 OP
flamin lib Jul 2020 #1
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2020 #2
sarisataka Jul 2020 #3
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2020 #4
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2020 #5
gejohnston Jul 2020 #6
flamin lib Jul 2020 #7
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2020 #8

Response to PBC_Democrat (Original post)

Mon Jul 6, 2020, 10:53 AM

1. Firearm Purchasing and Firearm Violence in the First Months of the Coronavirus Pandemic in the Unite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 7, 2020, 12:01 AM

2. Page 14: "We cannot infer causality from these observational data"

 

Also: not peer-reviewed, and funded by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation

IOW: No more credible than a paleontology paper funded by Answers In Genesis,
or a sociology paper funded by the Heritage Foundation.


Full paper at:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.20145508v1.full.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 7, 2020, 09:20 AM

3. I came across an interesting parallel today

5 INVESTIGATES: Juul recruited U of M researcher as vaping controversy intensified

A popular e-cigarettee manufacturer, already being sued by the state of Minnesota for allegedly fueling a youth vaping epidemic, is now accused of trying to legitimize its business by recruiting public health researchers—a practice critics say is ripped directly from the Big Tobacco playbook, 5 INVESTIGATES has found.

snip

"They said 'We’re interested in funding investigator-initiated research,'" Parks said. "And often, that comes with the connotation that it's unbiased… I did question, what did that mean to them?"

snip

"Your moniker as an academic, your institution that you work for, your good name – they get to borrow from," said research associate Yogi Hale with the University of California - San Francisco. "They’re basically vampirically sucking your reputation and trying to bolster theirs."

https://kstp.com/news/5-investigates-juul-recruited-u-of-m-researcher-as-vaping-controversy-intensified-july-6-2020/5783926/?cat=1

It seems gun control organizations follow the same playbook as big tobacco to get favorable studies. You simply fund the study and somehow it just happens to reach a result you like.

Perhaps that is why this, like so many others, is published without peer review. I suppose the tactic should not be surprising since the person who is arguably the face of the movement is also a former Monsanto PR exec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 8, 2020, 10:04 AM

4. Also note that the "Dr. Phil of gun control", Garen Wintermute, was listed as a co-author

 

The casual observer is meant to be impressed by his status as a professor.

We are not supposed to notice that (just like Phil McGraw) he doesn't have credentials in the field that he
pontificates about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 11, 2020, 01:13 PM

5. A mix of problematic implications and pure useful points

One useful point mentioned within is:
The risks of increased firearm availability are likely compounded by the myriad effects of the coronavirus pandemic, including widespread increases in anxiety, fear, grief, economic strain, disruptions to daily routines, and racial and economic inequities.
These mental, emotional and financial stresses and physical limitations are present even without a pandemic as a cause and have similar effects on people sometimes resulting in violence.

It is plain to me that this phrasing above prefaced by:
"The current increase in firearm purchases may be unique, not only in its catalyst but also in its consequences."
...points to a predisposition suggesting the authors' bias for concluding that this association is a cause for violence.

IMO, the additional stresses due to the pandemic are the cause for the increase in acquisitions but limiting the availability will not necessarily reduce violence. This is a key point because these factors often lead to violence with or without firearms. A combination of these factors along with a marginalized group within the population will contribute to violence and likely is disproportionate to the size of the marginalized group.

In short, the actions of law enforcement leading to the police abuse of minorities and especially POC, when added to any of the stresses noted above in the first paragraph will make violence more common and, if not a means to an end, at least means to relieve stress and anxiety.

The sad fact here is that police policies are actually fueling the fire that lights some the fuses in this perfect storm of events. Police, who are first hand dealing with domestic violence, looting and gang activity, are saddled with outdated methods and laws that often cause more harm than good. The bad apples in the bunch are making it worse.

I do feel that some cops are caught in a situation they don't like. I know many cops support reform and the BLM cause. Legislators need to be responsive to the will of the citizens. Many of the laws and policies regarding drugs need to change. The money and effort which goes to maintain the counterproductive "war" on drugs needs to be redirected into community support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 21, 2020, 05:21 PM

6. In addtion to what FI correctly pointed out,

Two unrelated populations. One group is legally buying guns, mostly first time (and many liberal) gun buyers concerned about social break down (although the riots are not connected to COVID). These are not part of the stat. What is the uptick in gang violence is mostly due to decreased proactive policing and police demoralization.

The study reminds me of the anti-marijuana shill studies from the 1920s and 1930s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 21, 2020, 05:29 PM

7. You were once entertaining enough to keep around for laughs.

Now you're just tediously predictable. G'bye and welcome to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 21, 2020, 10:40 PM

8. Wintermute and his claque are no different from Citizens For Decent Literature

 

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1177/citizens-for-decent-literature

Citizens for Decent Literature (CDL) was one of the earliest anti-pornography groups in the United States.

Keating believed pornography to be the cause of a good deal of sexually motivated criminal behavior. Through CDL, he sought to inhibit the sale and purchase of obscene materials and to pressure at times indifferent prosecutors, judges, and police officers into enforcing anti-obscenity statutes.

By the end of the 1960s, the group had 300 nationwide chapters and counted four senators and 70 representatives on its honorary committee.

CDL provided legal advice to municipalities seeking to prosecute retailers selling sexually explicit films and publications. Its lawyers prepared and distributed extensive reviews of changes in obscenity legislation to prosecutors around the country and assisted local police and prosecuting attorneys prepare for litigation and appeals in obscenity cases.


Also, the disapproval of the person who touted the endorsement of Republicans over two good Democrats at DU...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028123984#post28

flamin lib (9,074 posts)
28. That's why there is a single issue voting meme going on in the movement.

Don't vote party, vote gun violence. That's why Gabby Gifford's has endorsed two Republicans for senate. The two have consistently voted against the NRA and for her that's the most important issue for the short term.

Even if it is for only one or two election cycles, if the NRA's mythological omnipotence can be defeated and shown for being a mile deep and an inch wide it is worth it.


...isn't exactly a bad thing, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread