Real Background Check Denials Question

**flygrimm** · October 5th, 2015, 06:36 PM

An article posted to the Washington Post of an interview with Professor Adam Winkler. The Professor offers up several interesting points but the one I want to focus on is background check denials.

Whole article here:https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...mass-killings/

PLUM LINE: What are your top proposals, and how do you rebut the argument from the gun rights forces that these things wouldn’t make any difference?

WINKLER: The first thing we should do is require a background check on every single gun purchase. We know background checks work. Since the partial background check system went into effect in the mid-nineties, well over one million people have been denied the ability to purchase a gun. One million felons, mentally ill, and other prohibited persons were turned away. Some of those people may have found other ways to get guns. But the easiest way for them to get guns was shut off.

They say that over one million people have been turned away by not passing a background check. One Million. That's an awful lot of people since say 1995. Nearly 20 years so that averages to about 50,000 denials a year. Of that, how many were false positives where the buyer was able to eventually complete the purchase? I don't know the answer but I have a feeling it is a muddied statistic that is being paraded about by the antis like that frequently debunked 40 percent don't even get a background check lie.

False positives vs. positives? And how about the actual real denials. If they flunk the background check, aren't they in effect breaking the law? Who is prosecuting all these denials?

Just looking for facts to use to debate the other side. Any help appreciated.

Stuart

**GunLawyer001** · October 5th, 2015, 07:02 PM

Dr. John Lott is the go-to guy for this, which is why the usual leftist suspects keep trying to smear him without being able to challenge his data. He's an economist, he uses raw data and presents it in ways that can be verified. The left is mostly about propaganda, repeating broad yet false allegations over and over, until they are accepted as facts, and any challengers are ridiculed.

The fact is, our system relies on deterring crime through threats of punishment, and when the vast majority of NICS denials are never prosecuted, that tells you that the feds know that most of those denied are not "felons and the mentally ill". Further, since so many of those denied correctly for having mental health commitments in their past are not in any sense "mentally ill" today, they slander the entire mental health profession, by assuming that anyone who ever had a mental problem must still have that mental problem. They don't presume this for people with broken legs or drug addictions or even cancer, but they do for mental illness, as though psychiatrists are no more effective than witch doctors or rainmakers.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/0...nd-checks.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...ol-debate.html

http://godfatherpolitics.com/17975/9...lse-positives/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-reduce-crime/

**PAMedic=F|A=** · October 5th, 2015, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Dr. John Lott is the go-to guy for this, which is why the usual leftist suspects keep trying to smear him without being able to challenge his data. He's an economist, he uses raw data and presents it in ways that can be verified. The left is mostly about propaganda, repeating broad yet false allegations over and over, until they are accepted as facts, and any challengers are ridiculed.

The fact is, our system relies on deterring crime through threats of punishment, and when the vast majority of NICS denials are never prosecuted, that tells you that the feds know that most of those denied are not "felons and the mentally ill". Further, since so many of those denied correctly for having mental health commitments in their past are not in any sense "mentally ill" today, they slander the entire mental health profession, by assuming that anyone who ever had a mental problem must still have that mental problem. They don't presume this for people with broken legs or drug addictions or even cancer, but they do for mental illness, as though psychiatrists are no more effective than witch doctors or rainmakers.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/0...nd-checks.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...ol-debate.html

http://godfatherpolitics.com/17975/9...lse-positives/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-reduce-crime/

The old herbal remedies of witch doctors has been proven to be chemically active, sometimes effective in the lab. Not always, but often enough it can not be discounted. It would be hard to prove that psychiatrists can make the same claim. Yes, we've found medications that change the brain chemistry,but that is medicine, not psychiatry, & even witch doctors had such potions.

From Elyn Saks to John Nash Jr, it seems that all we can do is help, be supportive; the person has to fix themselves, themselves.

**Jhaydeno** · October 6th, 2015, 08:14 AM

I can't link to it right now, but the federal government prosecutes less than 50 people a year for failing NICS checks. Either the vast majority were false positives, or the existing laws aren't being enforced. Either way, it's an excellent point to keep in the back of your head when arguing with an anti-rights activist!

**t1066** · October 6th, 2015, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Jhaydeno

I can't link to it right now, but the federal government prosecutes less than 50 people a year for failing NICS checks. Either the vast majority were false positives, or the existing laws aren't being enforced. Either way, it's an excellent point to keep in the back of your head when arguing with an anti-rights activist!

Here are the NICS prosecution stats for 2010:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf