why could none of the studies designed to support the brady bill find any evidence that those checks decreased crime?
and lets suppose some guy with a clean record who lives out in the country sells his pistol to his neighbor and fails to drive 45 minutes into town to do the BGC? you want him to go to jail I suspect. you want him to be branded a felon so he cannot ever own a gun again. that is the scheme behind the private background check drive
Violent crime did go down after the Brady bill.
There are politicians and gun control proponents who claim the
Brady Act was a factor in producing the visible drop in homicide and violent crime of the last several years (for a display of homicide rates, see
chart). For example Bill Clinton said: "I would close the gun show loophole, because the Brady bill has worked superbly. It’s given us a 35 percent drop in gun crime and a 31 year low in the homicide rate, and kept a half a million people — felons, fugitives, stalkers, from getting handguns." (April 12, 2000,
NBC’s Tom Brokaw discusses gun control with the president) And Sarah Brady, Chairwoman of Handgun Control Inc., claimed: "The new FBI report demonstrates that the significant drop in the homicide rate last year is clearly linked to new efforts at gun tracing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Brady Law, and state anti-gun trafficking initiatives such as Virginia's one-gun-a-month law." (Oct. 18, 1999 U.S. Newswire). The first part of Sarah Brady's statement is true. "Gun tracing," which is directed at criminal activity, has proved to be very effective (see
enforcing the laws we already have). However it is extremely doubtful that the "Brady Law" was "clearly linked" to a "significant drop in the homicide rate last year [1998]."
For example, California, which has had at least a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases since 1965 (see
California's Handgun Waiting Period Law, 1952-1990: Did it Work?, by Clayton Cramer), experienced a greater decrease in its homicide rate (17.5%), in 1998, than the rest of the nation (7.4%). (
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1997 and 1998)
Yes, selling a gun without a background check should be a crime with some punishment affixed. It doesn't look like any of you would comply, otherwise.[/QUOTE]
yeah clinton claimed that and morons weren't smart enough to understand two things
denying felons access to legal weapons does not decrease crime if they then get weapons someplace else because NO ONE PROSECUTED THEM
2) only 12 people were prosecuted of the 100,000s Clinton brayed about
3) how does gun tracing decrease homicides-that was a bogus report-read it and get back to me, we all read it in my office.
4) you confuse correlation with causation
5) clinton was lying-his own DOJ report could find that the only crime that might have been decreased by the brady bill was suicides among men 55-60 in age and that was due to the waiting period not the checks.
how are you going to enforce the private Background checks without full registration
I am glad you are on record for wanting to ruin lives of people who may not do a stupid check. I would hope if their lives are ruined, they would ruin the lives of those who pushed the law on them