Fact check: Is Obama right that 40% of gun sales lack a background check?

posted at 11:21 am on April 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

According to WaPo’s best calculations, the number of actual check-less sales is roughly half of what O would have you believe. Won’t change a thing about the current debate, though. Obama and Biden have said repeatedly that if new regulations would save just one extra life then they’re worth it. From that standpoint, 20 percent is the same as 40 percent is the same as 100 percent. In fact, Biden acknowledged last month that even if they got the assault-weapons ban through, it wouldn’t fundamentally alter the chances of the sort of mass shooting that ostensibly inspired the White House’s gun-control push in the first place. None of this is about careful examination of gun-violence data and figuring out a way to respond to it. It’s not even about careful examination of what happened in Newtown; if it was, the legislative focus would be on mental illness, not weapons. It’s about the White House seizing a crisis/opportunity to gain whatever legislative foothold they can for their evergreen gun-control agenda. Pass something now and then try to build on it later incrementally to bring the public around towards banning broader and broader categories of semiautomatics. To call O out for bad data, while welcome, is to miss the point.

Meanwhile, note the phrasing in the original report — “acquisitions” and “transactions,” which included trades, gifts and the like. But Obama spoke of “gun purchases,” and his tweet referred to “gun sales.”

Why is it important to make a distinction between purchases and transactions? For one thing, the Senate bill that would expand background checks — supported by the White House — specifically makes an exception for “a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings” as well as “the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will.” As noted above, such transactions can change the results.

The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That’s at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama.

Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.

On the flip side of mostly symbolic gun-control measures, enjoy this vid (via the Right Scoop) of Nelson, Georgia, voting last night to make gun ownership mandatorysort of.

CBS Atlanta 46


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No, next question.

Galt2009 on April 2, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Liar, liar, mom jeans on fire!

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Witness the retardness spewing from the Connecticut statehouse and you can get a flavor of what the leftist trash have in store for us on the federal level.

I’ve never seen such a mess as what CT just passed into law, and I say that with BarkyCare being front and center these days.

Bishop on April 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Why do we keep having to disprove or “fact check” this lie?

Where are the GOP leaders calling him out for the filthy liar he is?

This routine is beyond old.

rrpjr on April 2, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Nelson, Georgia, voting last night to make gun ownership mandatory —

The Armed Citizen Project is raising money to give free guns to residents living in high-crime areas and to single women — so they can defend themselves against criminals.

Now we’re talkin’ .

tru2tx on April 2, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Bishop on April 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Yet the legacy of Samuel Colt lacks the testicular fortitude of a smaller company in Colorado.

Same with Ruger…

cozmo on April 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Now we’re talkin’ .

tru2tx on April 2, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Meh on the second part. How many of those will be turned in for a gift card during the next gun buy back.

cozmo on April 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Three Pinnochios from Glenn Kessler? You don’t see that every day. Of course if the rat-eared devil were a Republican Kessler would be assigning five or six (on a scale of four).

But why aren’t GOP leaders calling him on his lies. It doesn’t have to be confrontational just point out that the rat-eared devil doesn’t have his facts right and that any legislation is so much better when the people writing it have a fricking clue about what they are trying to regulate.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM

999 times out of 1000 whatever a donk says is a lie. 0bama is a perfect 1000 for 1000.

jukin3 on April 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Gregory claiming the same crapola

cmsinaz on April 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Of course he’s lying.

Besides the fact that he lies about EVERYTHING, this statistic just doesn’t stand the smell test.

There are somewhere between 16 to 20 million NICS checks run each year. If that’s only 60% of the total number of purchases, it means that there are 13 to 16 million private gun sales occurring each year.

Anyone who’s been to a gun show, or browsed any of the gun trade sites, knows that this percentage strains credulity.

PetecminMd on April 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM

I’ve never seen such a mess as what CT just passed into law, and I say that with BarkyCare being front and center these days.

Bishop on April 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Just read that on Drudge!

fourdeucer on April 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Why do we keep having to disprove or “fact check” this lie?

Where are the GOP leaders calling him out for the filthy liar he is?

rrpjr on April 2, 2013 at 11:29 AM

The GOP can talk until they’re until exhausted but unless the MSM reports it very few will hear them. The media only reports what the GOP says when they think they use their words against them.

darwin on April 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Obama owes Joe Wilson an apology! Never was there a politician like Joe who uttered more truthful words: “You lie!”

Christian Conservative on April 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM

LIAR!!! What a disgrace and a stain on the Republic. You idiot liberals should be so proud to have somebody in the WH that is such an unprincipled liar!

ultracon on April 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Sometimes a background check is just ridiculous. Say a sale between two LEO’s or CCW permit holders. Does Barak need a background check to buy a Shotgun from Biden?

Of course maybe the NRA should gift all politicians a firearm just to get the completed form 4473 if this passes.

meci on April 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Nearby Kennesaw has had a mandatory gun law on the books for 20 years, and credits the ordinance for its low crime rate.

Hard to argue with facts…unless you are a leftist in which case it doesn’t matter anyway.

HotAirian on April 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM

This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

Moreover, when asked whether the respondent bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although as we noted before, the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.

Statistically speaking, this ‘study’ is completely worthless. It would get you an F in any stats 101 course. I wouldn’t rely on this data to make any decision regarding anything, much less background checks.

RadClown on April 2, 2013 at 11:40 AM

BO lied?!? Who coulda guessed?

NotEasilyFooled on April 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM

The 40% number is from a post Brady Law study that includes intra-family transfers as part of these sales.

The statement is just as factual as claiming that 100% of gun sales lack a background check, if you use 1980 data.

gonnjos on April 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM

If his purple lips are moving, you know he’s lying.

Tater Salad on April 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Like any other number, served up to push their agenda, it was one they pulled out of their collective asses.

GarandFan on April 2, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Our headline – top Democrat tells lies. In other news, water is wet, sun rose in the east, etc.

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Liar, liar, mom jeans on fire!

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

LOL!

JannyMae on April 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Allah, even YOU have succumbed to BO’s teflon!

Jug Ears has been spewing outright lies for years, and there’s always some reason it isn’t important. The man is an outright liar, and the lie DOES matter in terms of this debate.

MikeinPRCA on April 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Related:

Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine

A New York Democratic lawmaker is behind a national push that would force gun owners to buy liability insurance or face a $10,000 fine.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, pushed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney and seven co-sponsors, follows efforts at the state level to create the controversial new kind of insurance for gun owners.

“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said in a written statement. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”

Because there are so many millions of honest legal gun owners that contribute to gun violence. #stupidity

Rovin on April 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Related:

Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine

A New York Democratic lawmaker is behind a national push that would force gun owners to buy liability insurance or face a $10,000 fine.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, pushed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney and seven co-sponsors, follows efforts at the state level to create the controversial new kind of insurance for gun owners.

“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said in a written statement. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”

Because there are so many millions of honest legal gun owners that contribute to gun violence. #stupidity

Rovin on April 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Couple that with every other attack they are making on the basic civil right of self-defense, and it should be completely obvious that they are after our guns.

Anything else they have to say contrary to that is a LIE.

Galt2009 on April 2, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Rovin on April 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Probably the tactic most likely to succeed in getting guns banned – for most commoners anyway. The Nomenklatura will still be able to afford them.

forest on April 2, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Heck 40% sound like a good figure. Let’s run with it. Actual research and facts need not obstruct the agenda here.

hawkeye54 on April 2, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Why would anyone waste time fact checking anything that comes from obama’s mouth. He wouldn’t/couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. This is just one of many reasons he will never be any kind of leader…he has no credibility…everyone knows he is a liar.

rjh on April 2, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Until some gun control legislation actually PASSES – and I mean BOTH houses of Congress, I am firm in my belief that gun control legislation is DOA.

There is no way in hell any such thing passes with any effect whatsoever. Not increased background checks, nothing.

deadrody on April 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Couple that with every other attack they are making on the basic civil right of self-defense, and it should be completely obvious that they are after our guns.

Anything else they have to say contrary to that is a LIE.

Galt2009 on April 2, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Exactly! And look what Connecticut did:

The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new “ammunition eligibility certificate,” imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state’s assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned. LINK

No AEC = NO SALE!

Rovin on April 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I’m surprised there are any cherry trees left in Washington with all of the lies coming from the WH.

Tater Salad on April 2, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Anecdotally speaking, even though I have a concealed weapons permit, I still had to fill out the Federal form at the dealer in order to get my baby Glock. Mind you, I had to be fingerprinted and checked out for my permit when I applied, so any additional check would be redundant, but still. . .. More made up “statistics” from our wonderful executive branch.

totherightofthem on April 2, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Couple that with every other attack they are making on the basic civil right of self-defense, and it should be completely obvious that they are after our guns.

Anything else they have to say contrary to that is a LIE.

Galt2009 on April 2, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Exactly! And look what Connecticut did:

The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new “ammunition eligibility certificate,” imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state’s assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned. LINK

No AEC = NO SALE!

Rovin on April 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM

One more example:

UN adopts Obama-backed arms trade treaty opposed by the NRA
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/291401-un-adopts-obama-backed-arms-trade-treaty-opposed-by-the-nra

The Obama administration joined 153 other nations Tuesday in approving an arms trade treaty opposed by the U.S. gun lobby.

Adoption of the treaty sets up a showdown between the White House and Congress, where a majority of senators have called on the president not to sign the treaty because it regulates small arms.

Galt2009 on April 2, 2013 at 12:15 PM

cozmo on April 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM

S&W also made some bad decisions a few years ago. They got hurt then, and I imagine now with more choices available, arms manufacturers may feel the lash of the marketplace even more, should they misstep.

a capella on April 2, 2013 at 12:22 PM

If the concept of “just saving one life” is valid, then the numbers of lives that are saved every year by legal,licensed gunowners both concealed carry types or not, outweighs the number of lives that are taken by scum bags and accidents So if the progs want to compare body counts or lack therof, we win.

retiredeagle on April 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Because criminals would obey a background check law when selling a gun to another criminal in an instance where both parties know the second criminal is going to commit murder.

rbj on April 2, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Yawn. Wake me when he tells the truth about something. Now THAT would be a Pulitzer-prize-winning story.

The Rogue Tomato on April 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM

This, bizarre and meaningless survey by an antigun group, is often cited. But it simply never made any sense. In my State you need not acquire a weapon from a FFL dealer. Of course not. But you still need a background check, and that record is kept in a Statewide computer file.

pat on April 2, 2013 at 12:31 PM

“I need to buy a gat to off someone.”

“Got this Glock right here.”

“Are you sure this gun is untraceable?”

“Yup. Serial numbers filed off.”

“Great. I’ll take it.”

“You’ll have to fill out this background check application first. It’s the law.”

The Rogue Tomato on April 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Is Obama right

uhm…how can anyone ask this about a pathological lying narcissist?

RedInMD on April 2, 2013 at 12:36 PM

I don’t appreciate the continued exaggeration that 40% of gun transactions are sans background checks, this just isn’t true and its an entirely arbitrary number, not even an educated guess.

The notion that universal background checks will mean anything to the people who have ugliness in their hearts is totally ludicrous, the term universal relates to a great loss of liberty.

And administrations like this one sees knowing where every legitimate gun owner is as merely a step towards taking them when a suitable emergency exists.

Maybe if liberal run governments went after the bad guys they would have an excuse to take ever more of our civil rights, you mean liberals would let people die to advance their agenda? Yes.

Speakup on April 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM

I personally love the left’s latest squirrel in a hailstorm thinking on gun legislation. We, apparently don’t need firearms in situations like Newtown or Aurora. We should wait until the shooter goes to reload the firearm and tackle him. Now, what is wrong with this thinking?

[cue Jeopardy think music]

That’s right, in the case of Sandy Hook the left would have the gunman brought down by first graders. The reality is that the only thing that ended the Sandy Hook shooting was the arrival of the police (which prompted the shooter to kill himself). How many of those children would be alive today if there was armed security or other measures other than having five and six-year olds expected to tackle a gunman?

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM

AllahP:

Where’s the clip interview with the prof who knew BHO at the U of Chicago who quoted Obama directly as telling him personally:

“I don’t think people should own guns.”

I saw it but can’t remember who was doing the interview. I’ll go look again. But why that quote is not across the front page – at least of Matt Drudge, I don’t know. Why do we constantly look at tea leaves when these people say exactly what they think, in unguarded moments (“clingers” for example)?

IndieDogg on April 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM

If you’re a conservative, you’d say that the resources needed to run the extra background checks would be taken from other, more effective, crime control programs while yielding fewer prevented crimes, thus producing a net increase in crime.

If you’re a liberal, you’d say you just need to grow some more money trees and look under more rocks for greedy billionaires to pay for the program, no need to cut any part of the government, just grow them all since more government is always better than less.

Socratease on April 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Charles Johnson is not stupid, he’s just a freeloader when it come to firearms and protecting himself.

Dusty on April 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM

The notion that universal background checks will mean anything to the people who have ugliness in their hearts is totally ludicrous, the term universal relates to a great loss of liberty.

Speakup on April 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM

The Fort Hood shooting is a slightly different set of circumstances because that was a terrorist act no matter what the rat-eared devil says. Nevertheless, that speaks to the motive not the process. Nadal Hassan went to the local gun shop, selected a weapon, went through all the checks, and even used the practice range to learn how to safely fire his weapon. In short he did everything legally. Not one aspect of this legislation floating around would have prevented the Fort Hood shooting.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I personally love the left’s latest squirrel in a hailstorm thinking on gun legislation. We, apparently don’t need firearms in situations like Newtown or Aurora. We should wait until the shooter goes to reload the firearm and tackle him. Now, what is wrong with this thinking?

What’s even more poignant is that Feinstein is touting the wisdom of this strategy because of her extensive expertise, having survived the Dan White shootings in San Francisco. However, Dan White used a low-capacity revolver to perform his mass-shootings, reloaded his revolver during the incident, and the civic leaders of the City By The Bay (not 3rd-graders) didn’t take the opportunity to tackle him when he did. If you think that this might lead you to the opposite conclusion, you’re obviously not a Democrat.

Socratease on April 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM

If you’re a conservative, you’d say that the resources needed to run the extra background checks would be taken from other, more effective, crime control programs while yielding fewer prevented crimes, thus producing a net increase in crime.

Socratease on April 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Well then, conservatives need to start thinking like liberals. You don’t take resources from other crime control programs. You take it from first responders or education. Give options. Either we stop this nonsense about background checks or be prepared to wait longer for an ambulance.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Obama is Liar-in-Chief. He knowingly, intentionally, deliberately lies because he thinks he can mostly get away with it, since MSM won’t call him on it.

As a liar, he is both brazen and prolific. No other President in history has so distinguished himself as a shameless effusive liar.

Obviously, in an earlier time he would have been held accountable.

petefrt on April 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

You don’t have to have everybody in town owning a gun to make the town safer. Just having a law like that passed in Nelson, Georgia will encourage more gun ownership and a willingness for the citizens to defend themselves. This will make the criminal element think twice about coming into that town.

bartbeast on April 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Not only has he always been wrong, he is a lying sack of dog $hit.

Him and his libtard, socialist party democrats came up with this lie out of thin air to try to promote his gun ban crap.

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

TX-96 on April 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Lets think about obeying the laws. The mother bought the rifle and the hand guns; when she let her son handle them she was breaking the law because he was in possession of a fire arm and he was breaking the law too. Both were guilty of a crime. Was anyone at the shooting range checking the stats on these two? Here in NYS you are unable to touch a hand gun in a gun store without a permit and they will ask for your permit.

mixplix on April 2, 2013 at 12:59 PM

AllahP:

Where’s the clip interview with the prof who knew BHO at the U of Chicago who quoted Obama directly as telling him personally:

“I don’t think people should own guns.”

I saw it but can’t remember who was doing the interview. I’ll go look again. But why that quote is not across the front page – at least of Matt Drudge, I don’t know. Why do we constantly look at tea leaves when these people say exactly what they think, in unguarded moments (“clingers” for example)?

IndieDogg on April 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Author Quotes Then-Professor Obama Saying, ‘I Don’t Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns’
http://cnsnews.com/node/646603#comment-848829953

In his new book, At the Brink, economist and author John R. Lott Jr., assesses the presidency of Barack Obama and recalls conversations regarding gun laws they had while working at the University of Chicago.

In Chapter Three, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then-professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns,” Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.

Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.

Colbyjack on April 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM

It’s an even bigger question how many of these sales “without a background check” are relevant to anything. Certainly, if you sell one of your guns to a family member or a buddy you’ve known for years, it’s beyond ludicrous to whine that there was no background check. And the above seems to be a very common way for people to wind up with guns.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 2, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Obama and Biden have said repeatedly that if new regulations would save just one extra life then they’re worth it.

If that’s the case, here are a few more things that should be banned:
Bathtubs
5-gallon buckets
Swimming pools
Toilets
Staircases
Ladders
Vehicle speeds greater than 20 mph
Solid foods
Rope
Open flame
Balconies
Trees
Hammers
Lawnmowers

Dexter_Alarius on April 2, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Alert – Fluke Obama – see the UN.

Your Second is in jeopardy, with Obama helping them.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Just out of curiosity how many tens of thousands of people have died from AIDS?

What has been the societal cost due to AIDS?

jukin3 on April 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Well now just hold on a second – there is a possibility Obumble could actually be right…..
Do we really know how many criminals buy guns illegally? If criminals illegally bought about 25 million guns on the black market last year (especially if we count BATF sales to drug cartels…), then the 40% figure could be accurate – since we in the real world know criminals don’t do background checks.
So how many of those illegal gun buys by criminals will be stopped by these laws? ZERO.

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Dexter_Alarius on April 2, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Definitely need to ban high capacity swimming pools and bathtubs – “for the childrennnnnnnn”.

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Yet the legacy of Samuel Colt lacks the testicular fortitude of a smaller company in Colorado.

Same with Ruger…

cozmo on April 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Colt has 5X more employees. Its not economically feasible to move them all to Texas or a more Constitutionally friendly state. I’m sure they also don’t want to fire long serviced employees and rehire all over again.

Bevan on April 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Just out of curiosity how many tens of thousands of people have died from AIDS?
What has been the societal cost due to AIDS?

jukin3 on April 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Seems to me we need to ban unprotected sex for gays and drug addicts – for the childrennnnnn…. I mean for the gays and addicts, of course.

How about we require all gays and drug addicts to buy AIDS liability insurance, or pay a $10,000 fine if they don’t?

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Colt has 5X more employees. Its not economically feasible to move them all to Texas or a more Constitutionally friendly state. I’m sure they also don’t want to fire long serviced employees and rehire all over again.

Bevan on April 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I’ll bet another state would offer to help pay moving expenses to get Colt. Rumor was that Texas and/or Wyoming did just that in their bids to get Magpul from Colorado. The investment would be well worth it for a state to snag a company like Colt – or Beretta, Remington, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, etc…

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

It fills me with a mixture of sadness and rage to say this, but I no longer believe a God D***ed thing this president or anyone associated with him says. Obama is utterly incapable of speaking the truth under any circumstances. This is beyond mere ignorance or hyper-partisanship. I truly believe the man is psychologically impaired and quite possibly evil.

RobertE on April 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Up here in Canada we used to have mandatory registration of all guns, the local police department had a unit who’s job was to check the papers for obituaries, and then check it against a list of registered owners. When they found one, they’d send out the ETF (the equivalent of SWAT) to recover the guns. Wouldn’t want anyone to have access to them after the pass of the gun owner, and of course you couldn’t register them in more than one persons name.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 2, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I am sick of hearing the sentence “if it saves just one life, it would be worth it.” If saving just one life is so all-fired important, they would ban bikes, stairs, ladders, pools, etc. Obviously, the party of abortion on demand does not want to save one life at all.

Qzsusy on April 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM