Advocates fight over background check statistic
WASHINGTON — Speaking on gun violence in Minneapolis Monday, President Obama sounded a refrain similar to those coming from gun control proponents: Enacting a system of expanded background checks on gun purchases should be a simple step for lawmakers, despite debates over other parts of broader gun control platform.
Voters support such a plan, polls show, and it's gotten a bit of traction on Capitol Hill, especially with Democrats. But detractors, the National Rifle Association among them, say one of the biggest statistics gun control advocates use in advancing the measure is based on faulty research.
Obama has used the stat in the past, saying some 40 percent of guns are purchased without the buyer going through a federal background check, which is required only when someone purchases a gun from a federally-licensed dealer (unlike private sellers you might see at a gun show). Just last week, at a Senate Judiciary hearing on gun violence, Baltimore County Sheriff Jim Johnson used the stat in response to a question from Sen. Amy Klobuchar. It’s also a component of the Brady Campaign’s push for stricter gun laws.
The conservative National Review has questioned the number, and PolitiFact has broken down the claim a handful of times. Their conclusion: the stat is based on old research with a fairly small sample size, though gun violence researchers say it might still be true today.
The original source of the 40 percent figure is a 1997 National Institute of Justice study [PDF] by researchers Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, who examined data from a 1994 telephone survey about gun ownership. The survey, which sampled 2,568 homes, asked owners an array of questions, including how many guns were in the house, what they were used for, how they were stored and how they were obtained.
But it’s important to note that of the 2,568 households surveyed, only 251 people answered the question about the origin of their gun
But in those answers, Cook and Ludwig found that 35.7 percent of respondents reported obtaining their gun from somewhere other than a licensed dealer. (That has been rounded up to 40 percent.) Some people answered "probably" and "probably not" if they weren’t entirely sure whether the seller was a licensed dealer. In some cases, where the respondent skipped the question about whether the gun came from a licensed dealer, the researchers made a judgment call. Ludwig said in an email that they mined answers to other questions (such as whether the gun was a gift) to guide them.
One of the study’s researchers said he has “no idea” if the number is still accurate. PolitiFact asked the opinions of a handful of experts on both sides of the gun debate, and they were divided on the current validity of the stat. PolitiFact gives the claim a “half true.”
Though lawmakers may very well end up considering several gun bills, they’ll defeat most of them (In Minneapolis, Obama called on the Senate to, at the very least, vote on some of his proposals). But background checks, as Obama said, might be one of the few areas where compromise is possible.
Polls show huge support for expanded background checks, even among members of the NRA. Gun control advocates say background checks should be an easy reform for Congress to pass, and Obama insinuated Monday that they should be considered light lifting, that the real fights lie in bans on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.
Statistical validity aside, the NRA has opposed new background check measures until current federal laws are enforced more vigorously, CEO Wayne LaPierre said last week.
“If you’re talking about expanding that system to every hunter, to every family member, every relative all over the United States when the system already can’t handle what it has,” he said, “you’re creating an enormous federal bureaucracy, and it’s only going to hit the law-abiding people, not criminals. … It’s an unworkable, universal, federal nightmare bureaucracy being imposed under the federal government.”
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
More like this
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
27 comments
-
27 comments
-
26 comments
-
24 comments

Comments (3)
I get lost in all the gun lobby terminology rhetoric
(Which frankly I often think is part of the gun lobby strategy to place obfuscations on the entire discussion in order to bog it down)
However - I do recall reading that there were some kinds of studies being done on gun ownership or some related part of the whole topic that were stopped in their tracks by NRA and other gun lobbyists as yet another part of the whole "against our 2nd Amendment rights" thing.
How - if at all - are the studies referred to in this article related to the studies which were stymied by the efforts of the gun lobby?
I can't help but wonder how the gun lobbyists can - with straight faces - criticize the quality of the studies that exist when they are the ones making sure to stand in the way of other, better studies being done.
Hypocrisy (and Rove-style strategizing) at its finest!
You're recollection is not
You're recollection is not entirely correct Pat. In the mid-90's & 2000's, the budgets specifically allocated toward research into gun violence has been decreased and laws enacted with the intention of protecting individual privacy has limited the ability for government and private entities to research gun ownership, gun violence, and the potential correlation between the two. This is not directly the result of NRA lobbyists, but supposedly they did argue for these budget cuts over others. Keep in mind, that budget cuts were going to happen one way or another either here, somewhere else, or both, and not all blame for the lack of proper research into gun violence can be placed upon the NRA's shoulders.
You should also keep in mind that gun culture has changed dramatically since 1997 with many private sales occurring between people living in different states. Transportation from one person to another must be done through an entity with a Federal Firearms License, and the FFL holder cannot legally hand over the weapon until they have completed the applicable background checks. What Pro-2nd Amdt. people are complaining about is that gun control advocates are using the number as a fact without explaining the faults (or potential faults) as it might be applied today.
It's too bad
We don't have a clear understanding of all the factors at play in gun violence, weapon prevalence, and gun trafficking. Good thing the NRA sponsored a politician to strip the CDC of funding for any firearm research
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-27/opinions/35486709_1_gun-vi...
Then that very same Representative who is no longer in office (and not receiving funding and backing from the NRA) now believes "scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners." What a turn around. Thanks, dude.
We need better data to understand which policies can have the highest chance of reducing gun violence (and violent crime in general) in our country, and target them in order.