Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[Kulindahr]

That is perhaps the funniest comment i've ever seen on JUB. With your accusations that those who want gun restrictions want people to be defenseless, and treat people as statistics, in disregard for the truth (making society safer), you are being extreme. The equivalent would be me saying "you want to keep your guns to compensate for being a coward". Statements which deliberately shift the focus from the truth, are extreme. You are one of the MOST guilty of it doing just that.

Again you illustrate that where I present reason, you go with emotion: the practical result of gun restrictions is that people are rendered defenseless against human predators -- it requires them to be defenseless. That's not extreme, because it's fact. So there will be actual individual people harmed by gun restrictions. Since that is an inescapable consequence, then supporting those restrictions means in practical, real-world terms, that if an increase in safety is involved, it is a statistical win at the expense of actual individuals. Thus, supporting gun restrictions means preferring statistics over actual people.

That's factual truth. Accusations of cowardice are emotional with no substance except prejudice.

So if I say to someone who wants no mentally ill people to have any firearms, I can quite rationally conclude they would rather that the mentally ill be victims, because that is the logical result of their position. And in fact I can reasonably conclude that they would prefer a world in which I was dead, because without my gun on my hip, more than once there has been a good chance that I would have been killed.

That response is akin to a child saying "NO, YOU ARE", when they've been called a name. Children lack smarts, which may explain why you hold the position to further proliferate guns in the hope of expecting things to improve, when the huge evidence, internal and external of the US shows that it is proliferation that is already causing the problem.

No, it isn't, it's just logic. My position is a very central one. The only people who can view a position in the center as extreme are those who are so far out on the extreme that they can't tell when they're looking at the center.

BTW, the evidence shows that "proliferation" is NOT the problem: just ask the FBI, whose figures show that the number of gun owners and the number of guns owned keep increasing while violent crime goes down. If proliferation were the problem, then an increase in guns would necessarily mean an increase in violent crime.

You want the constitution to be followed, because it favours those who like their guns. The right of self defence should be about defence, not about the means of defence. An amendment that directly states you have a right to bear arms, for self defence, protects the 'arms' as much as the people. So when the arms are the problem (effects of proliferation says they are), nothing can be done, because people become all 'but the bible says' about it (albeit in refence to the amendment).
The 2nd needs to be scrapped or re-written, the militia should be accepted as the modern police force, and the right of defence, should be explicitly about the individuals right to defend, not the method suggested.

You always go back to emotion. I don't care who likes guns and who doesn't.

Saying that "the right of self defence should be about defence, not about the means of defence" is like saying that the right to ride a bus should be about being on the bus, not the seating -- thus justifying injustice. It's like telling the blind man that it's his fault he can't see: it makes the value of a person depend on acquired skill or strength, and in essence goes back to "might makes right", because it requires those who are weaker or less skilled to be at the mercy of those who are stronger and/or more skilled.

The firearm is the great democratic weapon; it makes all equal. It's a tragic irony that a party that claims to be democratic can be so filled with people who are anti-democratic when it comes down to the most basic issue: personal safety.

I'll agree that the Second Amendment needs to be re-written; ever since the racists in the South came up with the state-right interpretation, grammatical morons have been twisting it. The Framers were too trusting; they should have kept in the language about self-defense, and even the language that would have required everyone to be armed.

The best place to start is accepting that some people ARE out to fuck with each other. Some people are dicks. But you don't help matters by removing trust in others generally. Walking around openly with guns, just in case, or arming school teachers, just in case, or wanting to turn all citizens into militiamen, just in case.....is paranoia ruling the mind, and distrust towards other citizens.
For the intent of the 2nd amendment, it existed in time of necessity, where the threat was not person-to-person, it was citizen to military. Its ironic how the US is becoming ever more militarized now, in an effort to combat the very thing that the 2nd was supposed to safeguard against, a relevant threat.

So, just like when the Social Security disability people write letters rejecting a disability benefit application in words that boil down to "Yes, you're disabled; go get a job", you admit that there are people against whom protection is needed, but then conclude that therefore no one should be allowed that protection.

The paranoia lies with the side that thinks that allowing responsible citizens firearms is going to mean more violence, when all the evidence is against that. Do you call it "paranoia" to put sprinkler systems in buildings? or smoke detectors? Is it "paranoia" to wear boots with thick soles when working on ground where there are nails, broken glass, etc.? No, being prepared for an existing possibility is NOT paranoia, it's common sense!

If that common sense were followed, there would never have been any need seen for police to militarize. Most of the population would be a somewhat "well-regulated" militia, with lots of marksmen, so that law enforcement would only have to call on the militia to deal with armed gangs.


BTW, self-defense wasn't written into the Second Amendment because it was presumed that no society would ever be so stupid as to want to take away people's chosen means of self-defense. It was a right taken to be so obvious they didn't bother writing it down. Incorporating that into the Second was the logical thing to do, since our society has somehow come to a position where the feelings of some have come to be regarded as more important than the actual safety of all.

 

[tobymerwin]

Do any of you really think gun regulation (or banning all guns) is going to stop these violent crimes? The U.S. can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing the border. We can't keep illegal drugs from crossing the border. Go ahead, ban guns. How long do you think it will take for illegal guns to start coming over the border?

 

[Mitchymo]

the practical result of gun restrictions is that people are rendered defenseless against human predators -- it requires them to be defenseless.

That's not extreme, because it's fact.

A fact is true. Your statement is not true, ergo it is at least disingenuous, even if not extreme. Taking a gun off someone is rendering them DISARMED, not defenceless.

So there will be actual individual people harmed by gun restrictions.

There are already countless individuals who are being harmed by lax gun laws. The argument that some people might be harmed by trying a different approach given the situation as it stands, doesn't hold great weight.

Thus, supporting gun restrictions means preferring statistics over actual people.

You are already treating people as statistics by failing to act on an issue, despite the significant contrast in death rates in comparison to the rest of the developed world. The 'we have a right to guns' brigade cares little for the death of those which can be realistically preventable, as observed elsewhere.

And in fact I can reasonably conclude that they would prefer a world in which I was dead, because without my gun on my hip, more than once there has been a good chance that I would have been killed.

Kuli, you are simply supposing that it is your life that is being devalued, rather than accepting the ethos that gun restriction 'lobby/supporters/whatever' want a society safer for everyone. There is no blindness to the fact that you cannot protect everybody, all of the time, but the evidence is blindingly overwhelming that gun-restricted societies typically result in less death.

My position is a very central one. The only people who can view a position in the center as extreme are those who are so far out on the extreme that they can't tell when they're looking at the center.

I assumed you were a libertarian?? They aren't to the centre. Even by global standards (since US politics are more to the right), you still wouldn't be any closer to the centre than i am.

BTW, the evidence shows that "proliferation" is NOT the problem: just ask the FBI, whose figures show that the number of gun owners and the number of guns owned keep increasing while violent crime goes down.

You have the source so i can see. It seems to conflict with this report:- http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
which seems to show fluctuating increases/decreases within short timeframes (2-5yrs), but an overall downward trend in gun ownership over the long term. Both numbers of people owning, and number of households with a firearm within, lower than in comparison to the 80s and 90s.

If proliferation were the problem, then an increase in guns would necessarily mean an increase in violent crime.

Not necessarily so. Simple example:-
100 people buy a gun.
5yrs later, 10 of those people no longer have a gun, but,
40 of the others purchased a second gun in that timeframe.
There are now 10% less gun owners, but,
a 30% increase in gun proliferation.
Provided that those who keep their guns can be trusted, you can proliferate as much as you like and it would be fine (mostly, within that group). The problem with proliferation is that it increases the viability for those without guns (by choice or by law) who want to obtain one for misuse, as well as proving unhelpful in trying to determine whether those who DO have guns, should or shouldn't be trusted who have them readily available.
Regulation is seeking to determine who are too much of a risk, but it is far from as effective as changing a culture towards guns that results in gun reduction, since the lack of availability is a greater stumbling block than the law saying you can't have a gun.

You always go back to emotion.

You keep saying that as if it is derogatory. Trying to demean someone else's point of view as being down to their emotions, is pretty low. You may as well be declaring yourself as a mindless robot.

I don't care who likes guns and who doesn't.

You're response to pretty much every suggestion to improve the situation (which works elswehere), when applied to the US, reiterates your interest in caring about what the words on a document says, OVER, what other people think. You don't care about who does and doesn't like guns, ONLY in as much as you don't care about those who aren't constitutional fundamentalists.

Saying that "the right of self defence should be about defence, not about the means of defence" is like saying that the right to ride a bus should be about being on the bus, not the seating

So....you ride a bus to rest your feet??? Most people use it for transport, but eh, whatever your needs are i guess. It is understandable that you would think this way, since you think a gun is for defending yourself with, as opposed to shooting things with.

It's like telling the blind man that it's his fault he can't see: it makes the value of a person depend on acquired skill or strength, and in essence goes back to "might makes right", because it requires those who are weaker or less skilled to be at the mercy of those who are stronger and/or more skilled.

Kuli, adding guns to the equation, or removing them, doesn't change the dichotomy. The outcome will ALWAYS be dependent on individual circumstance, which is why sometimes armed people get killed anyway, and sometimes an unarmed person overpowers an armed one.
A gun may make it easier for a weaker person to defend themselves, but equally, it enables a weaker person to do more harm with one. Not to mention that the criminal has the edge.

The firearm is the great democratic weapon; it makes all equal.

Those emoticons are much quicker than launching into a polemic about how ridiculous that statement is.

It's a tragic irony that a party that claims to be democratic can be so filled with people who are anti-democratic when it comes down to the most basic issue: personal safety.

Oh come off it. You are assuming that most people think like you do, and asserting that those who have other ideas are somehow in the minority. You need to think again. Most people don't care for guns, let alone care that they shouldn't be subject to restrictions to own them. Personal safety is exactly the same driving force ultimately, only its approach is at a group level. You think in reverse, that society will be safer if individuals have guns. The proof is in the pudding, and the approach you support is a failure.

The Framers were too trusting; they should have kept in the language about self-defense, and even the language that would have required everyone to be armed.

Given that most people choose not to be armed.....that would have been undemocratic. Not to mention a bit totalitarian.

The paranoia lies with the side that thinks that allowing responsible citizens firearms is going to mean more violence, when all the evidence is against that.

Why are your police more like a military if violence isn't an issue? Your police don't want to get shot in the line of duty, so take on a more militaristic role, thus giving you the excuse you need to form a 'militia' i suppose, which the police should be occupying the role of (i do not need a refresher course on the historical definition btw, been there, done that).
Your homicide rates, disputes your claim that allowing responsible citizens to own firearms won't lead to violence, especially when you oppose regulations specifically targeted towards isolating the irresponsible.

Do you call it "paranoia" to put sprinkler systems in buildings? or smoke detectors? Is it "paranoia" to wear boots with thick soles when working on ground where there are nails, broken glass, etc.? No, being prepared for an existing possibility is NOT paranoia, it's common sense!

Apart from the fact that smoke detectors, sprinklers, and safety boots, have one function alone, to protect, unlike guns which are designed for killing things moreso, it is nonsensical to hold a position that argues citizens should be trusted with guns, but then, in what seems to be a case of cognitive dissonance, consider humans to be inherently a threat. In regards to which, it is only sensible NOT to trust too many people with guns. Maybe say, a trusted group.....like a police force.

 

[Mitchymo]

Do any of you really think gun regulation (or banning all guns) is going to stop these violent crimes? The U.S. can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing the border. We can't keep illegal drugs from crossing the border. Go ahead, ban guns. How long do you think it will take for illegal guns to start coming over the border?

According to Mexico's authorities, most guns in their country come from the US actually. So banning guns would be doing Mexico a favour. Not that banning guns is necessary, just some decent gun regulations.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Do any of you really think gun regulation (or banning all guns) is going to stop these violent crimes? The U.S. can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing the border. We can't keep illegal drugs from crossing the border. Go ahead, ban guns. How long do you think it will take for illegal guns to start coming over the border?

No one ever says that it will completely stop violent crimes. I really have never seen this mentioned outside of the people on the other side of the gun regulation argument. It won't completely stop violent crimes (And what law completely stops any crime?) but it will sure as hell put a huge dent in it.

 

[Kabluey]

Do any of you really think gun regulation (or banning all guns) is going to stop these violent crimes? The U.S. can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing the border. We can't keep illegal drugs from crossing the border. Go ahead, ban guns. How long do you think it will take for illegal guns to start coming over the border?

Oh, no, people are still capable of crimes and violence.
Guns just make it easier to kill people indiscriminately.

Europe shares borders with countries more troubled than Mexico, with even greater numbers of people.
Yet they have a comparable crime rate, if not lower across the continent, and a homicide rate a fraction of that in the USA.

The key to fighting gun smuggling is making it illegal to own guns without permission. That makes search and seizure easy.

The key is reducing the access that people like teens, kids and everyday folk have to guns. Having a breakdown or argument at home ending in a punch up is better than being able to reach for a gun.

 

[opinterph]

… the FBI does use the data [from background checks] to track attempted illegal purchases, which may not be technically incriminating but is violating the spirit of the law.

That is an interesting point. I have searched to determine to what extent the federal government, in cases where the applicant is denied permission to purchase a firearm, retains data from the application. My search does not provide a definitive answer.

Please review and correct any of the assumptions I present below with respect to your understanding of data collection by the federal government.


Data from applications to purchase a firearm that are approved (instantly) is purged from the federal system within about 24 hours. FWIW~ It also seems apparent that compilation of FBI statistical data includes the number of successful applications, along with the number of denied or delayed applications. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that data regarding all (or most) “outcomes” associated with background checks is retained, but it is unclear to what extent specific data may be retained (at the federal level) with respect to the relatively small number of denied or delayed applications.

Data retention and intervention with regard to actions originating at the state level (that approve or disapprove purchases) seem to vary according to each respective state’s code.

Federally licensed gun dealers are required to retain the original copies of background check applications for 20 years, but those records are often forwarded to the federal government as a result of the cessation of business by dealers.

The federal government is prohibited by law from compiling background check data in a centralized computer database and typically stores such data (e.g. forwarded by out-of-business dealers, etc) on microfiche or similar means.


Reference link (for purpose of illustration): Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2010 - Statistical Tables (US Department of Justice)

 

[Kabluey]

...
The federal government is prohibited by law from compiling background check data in a centralized computer database and typically stores such data (e.g. forwarded by out-of-business dealers, etc) on microfiche or similar means.

Any particular reason for that? I've noticed the federal government also doesn't record visitors departing the USA by any formal process either. That seems like another pain point.

 

[kallipolis]

Should we believe that the United States Federal authorities always comply with the law?

I believe, otherwise...I invite you to read this article, written by Andrew P. Napolitano, senior judicial analyst
for Fox News Channel, the youngest life-tenured judge in the history of New Jersey.


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2004/11/cpr-26n6-1.pdf

 

[TX-Beau]

"The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

You get what you pay for.

 

[TX-Beau]

That should be you get the opinion you pay for.

 

[Kulindahr]

You paint with a pretty wide brush. Gather 800,000 people and tell me you won't have some bad apples in the group. Each of those officers averages 10 contacts with other civilians each day. Now multiply that by 365. You fear contact with evil; imagine the chances all those contacts will actually meet and deal with evil rather than imagined.

But why do they insist on keeping the bad cops? Every time a cop shoots someone innocent, the "thin blue line" draws tight and excuses are manufactured. And even when a cop is fired, what happens? He just trots down the road to the next jurisdiction and gets a job!

Law Enforcement is better at keeping its bad apples out being bad than the Roman Catholic Church has ever been at keeping bad priests out being bad!

 

[Kulindahr]

There are already countless individuals who are being harmed by lax gun laws. The argument that some people might be harmed by trying a different approach given the situation as it stands, doesn't hold great weight.

No, they're being harmed by people misusing guns. NO law will ever stop a criminal. The only one who can stop a criminal in the act is the victim or someone very close by: that rules out the police, and since courts say it isn't the police's job anyway, that means it's up to the individual.

You are already treating people as statistics by failing to act on an issue, despite the significant contrast in death rates in comparison to the rest of the developed world. The 'we have a right to guns' brigade cares little for the death of those which can be realistically preventable, as observed elsewhere.

LOL

I'm treating them as responsible individuals! They know there are bad guys, they know the police can't protect them; the logical conclusion is that it's their own job to protect themselves.

Kuli, you are simply supposing that it is your life that is being devalued, rather than accepting the ethos that gun restriction 'lobby/supporters/whatever' want a society safer for everyone. There is no blindness to the fact that you cannot protect everybody, all of the time, but the evidence is blindingly overwhelming that gun-restricted societies typically result in less death.

I'm not "supposing" anything: anyone who says I can't have a gun and carry it as I please is telling me that my life is not worth defending against an attacker.

That "you can't protect everybody, all of the time", means that you have no business at all telling anyone they can't defend themselves as they see fit.

You keep saying that as if it is derogatory. Trying to demean someone else's point of view as being down to their emotions, is pretty low. You may as well be declaring yourself as a mindless robot.

It's an objective observation: you keep going back to emotion. The entire anti-gun edifice is built on emotion, not reason. Reason says that since there is danger in the world, one should take steps to protect one's self. Reason says that no one has any right to tell anyone else how to do that.

The Founding Fathers were right: a man not allowed to be armed is not a citizen, but a slave.

You're response to pretty much every suggestion to improve the situation (which works elswehere), when applied to the US, reiterates your interest in caring about what the words on a document says, OVER, what other people think. You don't care about who does and doesn't like guns, ONLY in as much as you don't care about those who aren't constitutional fundamentalists.

Those words on that document are meant to protect us from democracy. They were established by men who had studied how manking with power treats mankind without power. So yes, I care more about those words than about opinions, because opinions contrary to liberty have no value whatsoever; they are as useful to political discourse as farts.

So....you ride a bus to rest your feet??? Most people use it for transport, but eh, whatever your needs are i guess. It is understandable that you would think this way, since you think a gun is for defending yourself with, as opposed to shooting things with.

You don't get the historical reference?

>lost cause alert<

Kuli, adding guns to the equation, or removing them, doesn't change the dichotomy. The outcome will ALWAYS be dependent on individual circumstance, which is why sometimes armed people get killed anyway, and sometimes an unarmed person overpowers an armed one.
A gun may make it easier for a weaker person to defend themselves, but equally, it enables a weaker person to do more harm with one. Not to mention that the criminal has the edge.

The armed defender has the edge: the criminal is in it for profit; getting shot is not a way to profit. The criminal willing to die for his "job" is rare, but the armed defender willing to shoot to defend his or her own is common.

Oh come off it. You are assuming that most people think like you do, and asserting that those who have other ideas are somehow in the minority. You need to think again. Most people don't care for guns, let alone care that they shouldn't be subject to restrictions to own them. Personal safety is exactly the same driving force ultimately, only its approach is at a group level. You think in reverse, that society will be safer if individuals have guns. The proof is in the pudding, and the approach you support is a failure.

If personal safety were the driving force, then those who don't want to carry guns would stop bothering those who do: personal safety is a personal matter, not to be dictated by anyone but the person.

When the "approach is at a group level", that means no one is regarded as an individual, only as a statistic. It means the proponents don't care if anyone in particular is harmed, so long as the statistic improve. It depends on seeing individuals as the property of society, who may be dictated to ("for their own good", of course). It overthrows the entire basis of human rights, which is that each individual owns his or her own self, mind and body.

At root, it is irrelevant whether "society is safer", because what matters is individual rights. That's what America is about: individual rights. It's not about being herd animals, content to leave their safety in someone else's hands, it's about being individuals in charge of themselves.

Responsibilities are the flip side of rights. Where rights are reduced, responsibilities are reduced. That's probably a big factor in why Americans don't care about each other as much as they used to: if "society" isn't willing to honor their rights, why should they give a shit about "society"? So you end up with people who think that cowering and waiting for a bad guy to choose them next, or that depending on luck that they aren't the next victim, is the right way to go. Such people have little regard for the value of their own lives; they are playing Russian Roulette with life.

Given that most people choose not to be armed.....that would have been undemocratic. Not to mention a bit totalitarian.

Back then people not willing to be armed were considered somehow lacking. It's too bad that we've lost that attitude.

Why are your police more like a military if violence isn't an issue? Your police don't want to get shot in the line of duty, so take on a more militaristic role, thus giving you the excuse you need to form a 'militia' i suppose, which the police should be occupying the role of (i do not need a refresher course on the historical definition btw, been there, done that).
Your homicide rates, disputes your claim that allowing responsible citizens to own firearms won't lead to violence, especially when you oppose regulations specifically targeted towards isolating the irresponsible.

I don't have to "form a militia"; I am the militia -- the Constitution and federal law say so.

What percentage of firearms owners commit violence with them? It's so minuscule that statistically it's zero.

Most violence in the United States is government subsidized through the misnamed "War on Drugs". That actually shows if you look at the violence patterns: if you take the few most drug-distributor contested precincts out of the top twenty urban areas in the U.S., you'll find that the rest of the country, despite all the firearms, is at least as safe as any other developed country. And the truly interesting thing about that is that those batches of precincts tend to have some of the lowest per-capita gun ownership in the country -- which means that in reality, in the U.S. we already have the evidence that reducing the number if guns in the hands of responsible citizens strongly corresponds in more violence.

Apart from the fact that smoke detectors, sprinklers, and safety boots, have one function alone, to protect, unlike guns which are designed for killing things moreso, it is nonsensical to hold a position that argues citizens should be trusted with guns, but then, in what seems to be a case of cognitive dissonance, consider humans to be inherently a threat. In regards to which, it is only sensible NOT to trust too many people with guns. Maybe say, a trusted group.....like a police force.

No American with any sense would trust the police farther than they would a Somali warlord: the police are NOT our friends (you did watch that video, right?). The job of the police isn't to protect anyone, it's to find people they can arrest -- that's what happens when you have "the rule of law"; the law gets elevated to godhood and ceases to be a tool for order, becoming instead a tool for repression, for intimidation.

The existence of a police force, especially as we have them today, is one of the better arguments for citizens organizing into militias: the police demonstrate over and over that they cannot be trusted; even those who in themselves could be trusted aren't allowed to be trusted, since they are authorized by law to lie to citizens, to deceive and manipulate, to NEVER say anything that could help a citizen demonstrate his or her innocence -- no, they are only allowed to take actions that will lead to ruin for citizens.

If our police were to be trusted, they would never accept military vehicles for their departments. If our police were to be trusted, they would never use lies or manipulation. If our police were to be trusted, they would refuse to seize property of citizens who have been convicted of no crime. If our police were to be trusted they would never engage in any action that would not be permitted a private citizen. If our police were to be trusted, they would come forward and report every corrupt action of every official.

But they do not. Taken as a whole, our police have no honor. They do not serve and protect anyone but themselves and those over them. They show no reason trust should be given them -- and anyone who trusts them is a fool.

 

[Kulindahr]

According to Mexico's authorities, most guns in their country come from the US actually. So banning guns would be doing Mexico a favour. Not that banning guns is necessary, just some decent gun regulations.

That's incorrect. It comes from a study that lied about its data: most of the guns that are traced in Mexican crime come from the U.S. But the Mexican police understand how little use there is in trying to trace guns, so the only ones they do trace are ones they suspect come from the U.S. -- and not surprisingly, a majority of those do come from the U.S.

In fact, they keep finding guns that came into Mexico from the U.S. because officials in the Obama administration ordered gun dealers to violate the law and let straw purchases be made for the very purpose of getting those guns into Mexico.

 

[Kulindahr]

.... making it illegal to own guns without permission.... makes search and seizure easy.

That's EXACTLY one of the big arguments that was made in getting the Second Amendment ratified.

Remember: the American Revolution began because the Crown decided to do some "search and seizure".

 

[Kulindahr]

That is an interesting point. I have searched to determine to what extent the federal government, in cases where the applicant is denied permission to purchase a firearm, retains data from the application. My search does not provide a definitive answer.

Please review and correct any of the assumptions I present below with respect to your understanding of data collection by the federal government.


Data from applications to purchase a firearm that are approved (instantly) is purged from the federal system within about 24 hours. FWIW~ It also seems apparent that compilation of FBI statistical data includes the number of successful applications, along with the number of denied or delayed applications. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that data regarding all (or most) “outcomes” associated with background checks is retained, but it is unclear to what extent specific data may be retained (at the federal level) with respect to the relatively small number of denied or delayed applications.

Data retention and intervention with regard to actions originating at the state level (that approve or disapprove purchases) seem to vary according to each respective state’s code.

Federally licensed gun dealers are required to retain the original copies of background check applications for 20 years, but those records are often forwarded to the federal government as a result of the cessation of business by dealers.

The federal government is prohibited by law from compiling background check data in a centralized computer database and typically stores such data (e.g. forwarded by out-of-business dealers, etc) on microfiche or similar means.


Reference link (for purpose of illustration): Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2010 - Statistical Tables (US Department of Justice)

That sums up my understanding. The issue arises from unapproved checks -- names seem to get collected due to what might be called a "loophole". The FBI can't use that information in prosecuting anyone, but they do use it to highlight individuals to keep a watch on. To me, that's a form of self-incrimination.

Of course, this information has gotten around to criminals (many of them read the internet, too), so most will avoid trying to buy at gun stores, or even gun shows (I learned recently that there's a trend among gun show operations to require attendees to pass a background check before they're even allowed through the door!), but watch estate sales especially, and some are so brazen as to hang out near "buy-backs" to offer people bringing guns more than the "buy-back" will give them (increasingly risky, as members of gun clubs have started doing the same thing, and I've seen discussion online of those members taking along picture sheets of known felons in the area).

BTW, I find the fact that any of those records go to the government a matter of concern, since it's a de facto registry. Gun store owners going out of business should turn their records over to another gun store owner.

 

[Kulindahr]

Any particular reason for that? I've noticed the federal government also doesn't record visitors departing the USA by any formal process either. That seems like another pain point.

It was noted during debate on the law in Congress that the Supreme Court has always crushed laws that require registration with the government in order to exercise a basic, enumerated right (and some that aren't enumerated).


Not recording visitors entering or departing is a tangled issue; as far as I've read it has always ended up coming down to two things: how it can be done without interfering with the right of American citizens to travel freely, and whether foreigners coming to America have to be treated as having the same rights as Americans.

 

[Kulindahr]

Should we believe that the United States Federal authorities always comply with the law?

I believe, otherwise...I invite you to read this article, written by Andrew P. Napolitano, senior judicial analyst
for Fox News Channel, the youngest life-tenured judge in the history of New Jersey.


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2004/11/cpr-26n6-1.pdf

Interesting bit:

"The federal government and many states have rendered themselves immune (called “sovereign immunity”) from such lawsuits
if the lawsuit attacks the exercise of discretion by government employees."

That term "sovereign immunity" comes from back when the only person who was sovereign was the monarch. It is utterly inappropriate among a free people.

 

[Kulindahr]

"The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

You get what you pay for.

Judge Napolitano does not work for the CATO Institute.

Do you have any reason to doubt his honesty? or the veracity of the information in the article?

 

[otters]

Judge Napolitano does not work for the CATO Institute.

Do you have any reason to doubt his honesty? or the veracity of the information in the article?

A so called "Pro-life Libertarian"? And "Roman Catholic"?

Since being "Libertarian" and "Roman Catholic", as well as being "Pro-life" and "Pro-gun", are each harsh contradictions in terms, there are a very good reasons to doubt one's honesty.