The Washington Post used to be the standard against which other newspapers were compared. The newspaper that helped bring-down a president, however, decided long ago to stop serving as an objective paper of legitimate journalism and opted to serve as a partisan rag similar to the New York Times.
Unlike The Times, however, The Post has swayed a bit over the years. In recent years, they have sensed their decline in legitimacy and have tried to appear more non-partisan. They have a ways to go yet, but in truth, they have been more-willing to shine a light on the half-truths and manipulations that can come from either side of the aisle.
Their most-recent target of criticism is Hillary Clinton- the flailing 2016 Democratic candidate who, amidst her repeated desperations to grab hold of a compelling campaign message, has latched-onto the failed gun control narratives about which she obviously has no clue.
The Post’s fact-checker reports that Hillary’s comments concerning the “40 percent” of guns that are sold without a background check is bogus and awarded her a whopping three Pinocchios for her lie.
During her remarks on gun violence at Manchester Community College in New Hampshire on October 5th, 2015, Clinton parroted what her liberal handlers told her:
“Forty percent of guns are sold at gun shows, online sales.”
Any thinking individual wouldn’t need a fact-checker to know that that isn’t true. Still, it’s nice to have an explanation:
First, the “loophole” mentioned by Clinton refers to “person-to-person” sales, primarily by people who do not earn a livelihood from firearm sales. People engaged in the business of selling guns by contrast need a Federal Firearms License (FFL), but unlicensed sellers can sell to a neighbor, a friend, at a gun show or over the Internet.
But many sellers at guns shows actually have an FFL and conduct background checks, while 17 states (including California, New York and Illinois) have passed laws which require at least background checks on all handgun sales at gun shows.
So where does the 40 percent figure come from? It is derived from studiesthat were based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
The survey sample was relatively small — just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
The analysis concluded that 35.7 percent of respondents indicated they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.
Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)
The original report carefully uses terms such as “acquisitions” and “transactions,” which included trades, gifts and the like. This subtlety is lost on many politicians such as Clinton, who referred to “sales.”…
The Fact Checker in 2013 asked one of the co-authors of the study, Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, to rerun the numbers, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent were purchased without a background check. That’s at least half the percentage cited by Clinton.
Unpublished data from the 2004 National Firearms Survey, provided by Lisa Hepburn of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, show that about 30 percent of firearm transactions were gifts or inheritances. Of purchases, 42 percent came from a store, 9 percent from a private sale, 8 percent from a family or friend, 7 percent from a gun show, 2 percent from a pawn shop and 1 percent “other.”
A majority of the private, family and “other” sales, as well as some of the gun-show sales, were likely not from a licensed dealers. But gun shows make up a relatively small percentage…
By any reasonable measure, Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows or over the Internet — and thus evade background checks through a loophole — does not stand up to scrutiny.
As we demonstrated, the 40-percent figure, even if confirmed in a new survey, refers to all gun transactions, not just gun sales. A large percentage of the gun transactions not covered by background checks are family and friend transactions – which would have been exempt from the universal background checks pushed by Democrats. Indeed, many gun-show sales are made by licensed firearm dealers — and 17 states even have that requirement, at least for handguns.
Clinton earns Three Pinocchios.
Also worth noting is that though liberals love to rant about how people may purchase firearms on the internet and thus evade the background check, that is not actually true.
While many can and do purchase the firearm on the internet, after the sale, the firearm is sent from on FFL holder to another and the purchaser, in order to receive his firearm, must submit to an unconstitutional background check.
In this sense, it may be true that a person can purchase a firearm on the internet, but in reality, the purchaser must undergo a federal background check.
But the truth hardly helps the fearmongering left in their crusade to erode the Second Amendment, so these facts are often omitted.