Study: Universal Background Checks in California Did Not Reduce Homicides

In other words, the very checks that the Democrat Party pushes on the national level — the checks that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) describes as the gun control “north star” — already exist in California, and they did nothing to reduce homicides during the time frame studied.

Townhall reported that the study was conducted by UC Davis’s Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,,,shocking


Source :https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/26/ca-universal-background-checks-not-reduce-homicides/

 

The findings in the above study will be dismissed as the result of firearms being smuggled in from states outside the state of California, and be used as an example for why universal background checks must be in place in every single state in the united states, and codified into federal law as well.

 

c'mon..you would dismiss any thing that challenges your faith

 

It is merely being pointed out how the intended target audience will respond to such information that undermines their position. If a particular firearm-related restriction does not work, it is simply because it did not go far enough in terms of its scope.

 

Always click through to the primary sources for such stories; https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362

And before anyone leaps in to attack me, note that I’m deliberately not expressing any personal opinion here.

 

I posted this in Political Beliefs.
Thanks!

 

Thanks for the link.

“ 'Incomplete reporting of prohibiting data to background check systems in the 1990s, prior to implementation of the policies in California, is an important limiting factor,' Wintemute said. 'In 1990, only 25 percent of criminal records were accessible in the primary federal database used for background checks, and centralized records of mental health prohibitions were almost nonexistent. As a result, a large number of people likely passed their background checks even in cases where, according to law, they should have been prohibited from purchasing a firearm. This remains a serious problem today; mass shootings have resulted from prohibited persons passing background checks and purchasing firearms.'

"Wintemute notes that the quality and completeness of the records upon which background checks are completed has improved significantly since 2000 and studies of the more rigorous permit-to-purchase laws show a clear benefit on reducing firearm mortality by as much as 40 percent for homicides and 16 percent for suicides.

"Importantly, the Connecticut and Missouri statutes associated with beneficial effects on firearm violence incorporated a permit-to-purchase provision. Permit-to-purchase laws require prospective purchasers to obtain a permit from a law enforcement agency, and complete a background check. Straw buyers or others with criminal intent may be less willing to risk law enforcement scrutiny. Permit requirements may also help law-abiding sellers to identify a prohibited or unauthorized buyer."
https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362

So universal background checks are not enough. The federal database used to conduct background checks does not contain all criminal records. A PTP law is what is needed.

Didn't we already learn this from the Parkland shooting? The shooter in that case was able to pass a background check in order to purchase an AR-15 rifle.

 

Most gun control advocates really don't care if their schemes actually work to decrease crimes. Sure, they claim that is their reason for pushing such laws, but given the pathetic arguments they advance in favor of "crime control" and their hostility towards the NRA and lawful gun owners, the obvious real reason is to harass right wing voters.

 

Cruz did pass a NICS check and lied on the 4473 about having been involuntary institutionalized to a mental health facility, Henderson Mental Health.

However Florida's Constitution forbids releasing such records to the NICS and many other states have similar protections of mental health records.

 

They are happy to support and enact laws the know will fail because it gives them an excuse to pass another law.

 

Lets look at the referenced study

Incomplete background-check records, absence of permit-to-purchase provision, and compliance among possible explanations for findings
(SACRAMENTO) —
A study of firearm homicide and suicide rates in the 10 years after California simultaneously mandated comprehensive background checks for nearly all firearm sales and a prohibition on gun purchase and possession for persons convicted of most violent misdemeanor crimes found no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.

The study, which posted online Oct. 12 as in press at the journal Annals of Epidemiology, was conducted by the Violence Prevention Research Program(VPRP) at UC Davis and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It compared observed annual firearm homicide and suicide rates in California over 10 years following enactment of comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies in 1991 with expected rates based on data from 32 control states that did not have these policies and did not implement other major firearm policies during the same time.

“In the 10 years after policy implementation, firearm suicide rates were, on average, 10.9 percent lower in California than expected, but we observed a similar decrease in non-firearm suicide,” said Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, senior author on the study.

“This suggests that the policies’ estimated impact on firearm suicide may be part of broader changes in suicide risk around the time that the California policies were implemented,” he said.

The study found no net difference between firearm-related homicide rates before and during the 10 years after policy implementation.

The findings of the current study disagree with those of studies associating comprehensive background check policies with a reduction in firearm homicide and suicide in Connecticut, and an increase in firearm homicide and suicide after comprehensive background check repeal in Missouri. Connecticut has, and Missouri had, permit-to-purchase policies, however, and the permit requirement may be associated with effectiveness.

The authors believe several factors may explain the findings of the study. Leading possibilities include inadequate criminal and mental health records, incomplete compliance and the small size of the population directly affected by the laws.

“Incomplete reporting of prohibiting data to background check systems in the 1990s, prior to implementation of the policies in California, is an important limiting factor,” Wintemute said. “In 1990, only 25 percent of criminal records were accessible in the primary federal database used for background checks, and centralized records of mental health prohibitions were almost nonexistent. As a result, a large number of people likely passed their background checks even in cases where, according to law, they should have been prohibited from purchasing a firearm. This remains a serious problem today; mass shootings have resulted from prohibited persons passing background checks and purchasing firearms.”

Wintemute notes that the quality and completeness of the records upon which background checks are completed has improved significantly since 2000 and studies of the more rigorous permit-to-purchase laws show a clear benefit on reducing firearm mortality by as much as 40 percent for homicides and 16 percent for suicides.

Importantly, the Connecticut and Missouri statutes associated with beneficial effects on firearm violence incorporated a permit-to-purchase provision. Permit-to-purchase laws require prospective purchasers to obtain a permit from a law enforcement agency, and complete a background check. Straw buyers or others with criminal intent may be less willing to risk law enforcement scrutiny. Permit requirements may also help law-abiding sellers to identify a prohibited or unauthorized buyer.

In separate survey research from VPRP, approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of firearm owners in California reported that their most recent firearm purchases did not involve background checks. Further analysis is in progress; as mentioned, noncompliance with background check requirements may help explain the findings of the current study.​

And, as others have noted, given that surrounding states like nevada have very loose laws, it is easy to procure weapons.... as the las vegas mass killer illustrated

If we really wanted to have an impact on gun violence, we would start trying thing and see what works. Instead, we look for excuses to do as little as possible. I do not expect that will change. But let’s acknowledge the simple truth that we really do not want to even try

 

For those that want to commit a federal felony, sure.

Looking at California and the failure of its laws... what's left to try?

 

The Las Vegas shooter passed a background check for every gun he purchased.

 

Sorry but it was funded by the Joyce Foundation and everything they fund is fake news accoprding to everyone on here

This study, entitled “California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was funded by the Joyce Foundation [grant ID 15-36377

 

So it is easy to comply
What is your objection

 

A UBC without a reduction in straw purchases, comprehensive firearm registration and an easy gun transfer process cannot be effective.

Did compliance stop the Law Vegas shooter?

 

Looking at California and the failure of its laws... what's left to try?

 

And yet a permit-to-purchase requirement for firearm purchases failed to do anything with regard to either Ian Long, or David Katz, both of whom were issued permits for the purchase of firearms, and both of whom went on to commit mass shootings.

Then there is the permit-to-purchase system in the state of New York, currently embroiled in a widespread corruption investigation as it was found permits were issued to individuals who could not legally possess firearms to begin with, due to disqualifying criminal records.

 

You mean laws are not perfect at stopping all crime?????

 

I agree your idea is better
So lets work towards your idea

 

Rucker has good ideas

UBC without a reduction in straw purchases, comprehensive firearm registration and an easy gun transfer process cannot be effective.
​

 

Yeah lets use all those things

 

It's actually the stated position of the DOJ, in their 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies".

 

I an glad we agree
Hopefully there is Some substance they are pursuing. Are you aware of what they are doing to make this happen

 

California has all of these things, and they continually fail to stop anyone who wants a gun from getting one.
So, again... looking at California and the failure of its laws... what's left to try?