Sample Of Background Check: Fill & Download for Free

I would like to say it’s because wiser heads have prevailed in Washington, but we know that’s not the case.In the first place, 90% of registered voters don’t support universal background checks, especially when it comes to voting for them. There was a brief period in late 2012, when the nation was still reeling from the Sandy Hook murders, that that figure was reached in a national survey, but it’s been lower ever since.When it came to people actually voting for expanded background checks, Oregon had the largest percentage in favor. I think it was about 63%. It passed by a smaller margin in Washington State where it was opposed by the largest law enforcement association in the state. Supporters spent more than $11 million, largely funded by Everytown for Gun Safety and Microsoft billionaires Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates, while the opposition’s war chest was about $602,000. Initiative 594 passed in 15 Washington counties and was defeated in 24, primarily in the southern and eastern regions of the state.When the question was put to a vote in Nevada, it was defeated in every county except Clark County, which includes Las Vegas. It was the majority in Clark County that allowed the measure to pass. And this was after Michael Bloomberg and Everytown for Gun Safety pumped in three times as much money as the NRA.Background checks were defeated by voters in Maine. Out of Maine’s 16 counties, only four approved the measure. Everytown for Gun Safety, all by itself, spent more than four times as the total spent by opponents of the measure.Isn’t it amazing that everybody talks about the NRA’s spending but nobody seems to have much to say about spending by gun control advocates.Just because 90% of Americans polled in a random phone survey say something that doesn’t always make it true or wise. Remember the polls said Hillary Clinton was going to win the White House in 2016 and the Democrats would retake the Senate.You have probably heard of the “Gun Show Loophole.” That 40% of gun sales were made without a background check. That is a lie, plain and simple. The survey on which that claim was based was conducted in November and December of 1994. Participants were asked if they had acquired a firearm in the past two years and, if so, what was the source. Out of a total survey sample of 2,400 people, exactly 251 responded to the question.Of that group, which even the author of the study said wasn’t statistically valid, 60% of respondents said they had gotten their gun from a retail store, such as a gun shop, pawn shop of sporting goods store. Another 17% said the gun was a gift or was purchased from a family member. These types of transfers don’t involve a background check. Another 12% said the source was a friend. We’re now up to 89%. Only 4% said they got their gun at a gun show or flea market.Now, here’s the kicker. Remember that I said the survey was conducted in November and December of 1994 and the question covered the previous two years, or back to late 1992. Background check laws didn’t go into effect until February 1994. So for most of the survey period, there weren’t any background checks.The study also failed to ask if the gun show acquisitions were from a licensed dealer. This is important because most gun show sales are made by licensed dealers. So we really don’t know how many of those sales would have involved a background check, had the law been in effect.According to gun control advocates, background checks will prevent guns getting into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Criminals are people who shouldn’t have them, so it’s worthwhile to learn how criminals get the guns they use.The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a study of prisoners in state and federal prisons in 2016. The results of the study were reported last month.The chart below shows a breakdown of the major sources for guns used in crime.Gun shows and flea markets were the source of just 1.2% of crime guns. 9.1% were purchased from licensed dealers after passing background checks. Straw purchases were sales made to people who could pass background checks but were buying guns for people who shouldn’t have them, which is a federal offense.If everything worked perfectly, which it already doesn’t, less than a quarter of all acquisitions of crime guns would even be affected.Since there is no federal gun registration (it’s illegal under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986), it’s impossible to track anything but sales of firearms made by licensed dealers. With the exception of just a few states, nobody knows how many guns are out there, who owns them or where they are.House Bill 8 prohibits establishment of a registry so it is essentially unenforceable. Some county sheriffs in states that have enacted expanded background check laws have said they are not going to even try to enforce them.Underlying all of this is the Great Kosmic Truth that background checks are generally worthless, especially when it comes to mass shootings. That’s because the majority of mass shooters didn’t have criminal records and had never been adjudicated as having mental health issues that warranted involuntary commitment to a mental health facility.Many, many people have used the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School to promote things like background checks, assault weapons bans and other measures. But not one of them would have prevented Adam Lanza from killing all those children and school personnel.Take a moment and think about that. Not one law pushed by Everytown for Gun Safety, the Giffords Law Center, the Brady Center and all the rest, including David Hogg and his March for Our Lives, would have prevented a single mass shooting. Not one.The emperor has no clothes but nobody is willing to tell him. The gun control advocates are just like the crooked tailor in the fairy tale.Other than a few failures in the system, such as Seung-Hui Cho, Devin Kelley and Dylann Roof, every mass shooter in the past 20 years has either stolen, had someone else purchase, or gotten their guns after passing a background check.I think everyone would agree that people like Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Nidal Hassan, Elliot Rodger, Omar Mateen, Stephen Paddock, Jarred Ramos, Robert Bowers would certainly be people who shouldn’t have had guns. But every one of them passed the NICS check, sometimes more than once. Paddock passed dozens of them in assembling his arsenal.When Ian Long killed 12 people at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, Diane Feinstein was among the first to demand passage of “sensible” gun laws. But every one of those laws was in effect in California when Long burst into the bar. They were also in effect when Kevin Neal shot up Rancho Tehama, when Elliot Rodger took his trip through Isla Vista, when Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik crashed the Christmas party at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, when Jimmy Lam gunned down workers at the UPS facility in San Francisco and when Albert Wong murdered three workers at the Veterans Home of California in Yountville.When the Gun Violence Archives tallied up more than 330 “mass shootings” in 2018, California and Illinois tied for the most incidents and there were more murders in California as a result of those mass shootings than in any other state.When the Centers for Homeland Defense and Security announced 96 school shootings, who was at the top of the list? Yup, it was California.Looks to me like all those laws didn’t do anything at all in California. So why on earth would we enact them nationwide?It doesn’t matter that at some time, 90% of Americans wanted universal background checks. They had been hit with a barrage of baloney and no one had a chance to tell them the truth. The lie was big enough and repeated often enough to become the accepted truth. But it’s still a lie.By the way, nothing I have said comes from the NRA. Everything has been verified with the most authoritative sources I could find.So why haven’t background checks become the law? I guess, because in spite of our collective ignorance and gullibility, there is a God who has taken pity on us.

The most interesting I have found in polls is looking at the way the questions are phrased. It always also makes these types of results questionable. For example, the old “even 90% of NRA members want more background checks” type of statistic. Of course, they don’t have the NRA membership lists, so, assuming these polls are even real, that means they took the word of the person being polled about their NRA membership status.Also, people tend to say they’re in favor of more background checks, until the current laws are explained, and the “universal” checks are explained. However, as with a lot of these results, the media gets a result that is favorable to their narrative and that is repeated everywhere. Why bother running another poll? Why not expand our sample size outside of the major cities? Well, there’s no need. We have this poll that says what we need.

Well, two things.Firstly, he’s lying. Not misleading, not misquoting, not making a mistake. This is a deliberate lie. 97% of people never agree on anything, unless it’s something truly fundamental like “being on fire is bad”, or you manipulate the figures through tricks like excessively small sample sizes or misleading questions.Secondly, we would fucking love it if Congress obeyed the dictates of the NRA. Seriously, that would be just grand. The NRA-ILA spends far less money than gun-control groups. The only reason that the NRA-ILA has any sway is that we of the NRA are willing to actually show up and vote out of office people who ignore us. That’s not the NRA-ILA “buying” or dictating to Congress, that’s congress critters being accountable to their constituents. And we still have shit like NFA34 and the new bump-stock ban. If Congress just did whatever the NRA dictated, then I could order an M1923 pattern Thompson submachinegun through the mail, with no more paperwork than it took to fill out the order to the manufacturer.Finally, banners wouldn’t know common-sense if it shot them in the face. They tout that phrase around in order to claim the rational high-ground and gaslight people into agreeing with their asinine ideas. You don’t make people safer by making them more helpless. That’s common sense.I think Sanders just really misses the USSR, and wishes he could have been a part of it.Original question-What's your view on Bernie Sander's comment that: "97% of Americans support comprehensive background checks. It's time for Republicans in Congress to listen to the American people and stop simply obeying the dictates of the NRA."?