HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What sorts of prohibited ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:36 PM

What sorts of prohibited people are in the NICS database and which actually get denied gun permits

This data was collected off the FBI NICS information page.

I found it interesting to know what categories of people were prohibited from gun purchases and which prohibited persons go ahead and try to purchase a firearm product

Currently illegal immigrants and the persons adjudicated prohibited from gun purchase for mental health reasons represent 62.6% and 21.88%, about 84% of the records in the database but respectively account for 1.21% and 1.03% (or 2.24% of prohibited persons detected trying to purchase a firearm.

Less than half the number of US convicted felons are included in this database. Convicted felons represent 8.74% of the records in the database but these are are associated with 58% of the denials produced by the system from Nov 1998 through Dec 2012.

80,987 persons who are unlawful users of controlled substances are in the database. Estimates of methamphetamine use in the US is about 1.4 million unlawful users. Unlawful users of any controlled substance account for 8.20% of denials enforced by NICS.



11 replies, 1049 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:42 PM

1. What Conclusions, Findings, and/or Recommendations would you think follow these Data?

I have a few but I didn't write the OP, and I am curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:48 PM

3. Better communication between agencies is key

That is the biggest flaw in the background check system right now.

Beyond that, closing the private seller loophole for firearms would be another positive step.

Finally, checking to see if a restricted person resides in a household should also be considered as well.


We don't need any new bans or the political fallout from them if these things were implemented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:50 PM

5. Good ideas but I can imagine that third one regarding household of residence would be a tricky one.

And a wide open door to a very much more authoritarian government and society.

Thinking of the ways to get around it, how would police and DHS and FBI or ATF then justify even more freedom to search, etc.

It's troubling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:53 PM

8. Yes it is troubling. The conflicting values should be give due consideration. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:55 PM

10. I could only think of one way for it to be possible

Make the purchaser liable for whatever damages or penalties the restricted person incurs. This shifts responsibility to the purchaser to make sure the firearm is not used irresponsibly. It also does not deny them the right to purchase a firearm if they are legally able to do so.

This is similar to a parent being responsible for what their child does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:49 PM

4. The system of adding records is apparently largely voluntary, that should be changed

to more disciplined required reporting.

I'm not exactly sure what other databases may link to the instant background check, but the NICS clearly has under-reporting of categories of prohibited persons who appear more likely to seek weapons when they know they shouldn't.

Rather than aggressively pursuing more mentally ill, it may be more useful to tighten up reporting on felons and unlawful drug users.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:52 PM

7. It's not unlike our existing un-healthcare system.

No consolidated recordkeeping systems are in place.

I support more intrastate sharing of records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:56 PM

9. At first glance it seems the database represents data that's easy to get rather

than data that an effort should be made to include.

I really don't know how other databases might fill in the missing stuff, so I hesitate to be too critical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:46 PM

2. That's interesting

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:51 PM

6. I never thought about how many people renounced citizenship n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:00 PM

11. Automatic DU Rec for posting hard information

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread