Gun-control measures were a controversial part of last year’s legislative session. Lawmakers passed several measures intended to reduce gun violence, among them a 15-round limit on detachable magazines and a measure expanding the role of background checks for those seeking to purchase firearms.
The magazine limit remains a hot-button, but debate about background checks should be settled: The numbers are in, and the checks are clearly worth the effort.
As The Denver Post reported Tuesday, data from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation show there were almost 397,000 background checks performed in Colorado in 2013 on both private and retail sales.
Of those 7,351 were rejected.
The Post described that as “only 1.9 percent” of the applicants. But there is no “only” if your loved one is saved by such an intervention. And a breakdown of those rejected suggests there could easily be more than a few such benefactors.
Of the more than 7,300 would-be gun purchasers who failed a background check in 2013, CBI numbers show that 41 had been arrested or convicted of homicide, 166 had an arrest or conviction for sexual assault and 1,412 showed arrests or convictions for assault. That means the background checks prevented or delayed more than 1,600 individuals who had been arrested or convicted of violent crimes from getting guns.
That is in one year. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is fond of also quoting the numbers from the year before. In 2012, says the governor, the Colorado Department of Public Safety found background checks rejected 38 people charged or convicted of homicide, 133 for sexual assault, 620 for burglary, 1,300 for felony assault, 420 who had restraining orders and another 236 with outstanding warrants.
In just two years, more than 14,000 would-be gun buyers were rejected because they failed background checks – a great many of whom had arrests or convictions for violent crimes, even murder. It is impossible to quantify a conjecture, but it is equally difficult to imagine that all of them were model citizens intent only on protecting their homes and families, joining a shooting club, taking up hunting or becoming gun collectors. And with that, it seems certain that innocent lives were saved.
(As to the idea that criminals do not buy from legal dealers, remember: If they were smart, they would probably not be criminals. Fourteen-thousand people, knowing they were at least accused criminals, tried to buy guns at places where they presumably had to know their backgrounds would be checked. These are not rocket scientists.)
How many lives may have been saved by background checks? Who knows? But of 14,000 rejections, perhaps 10,000 found other, less legal, access to guns and went about their business, whatever that was. Maybe it was 12,000. That still leaves 2,000 dubious characters who may have been at least partly dissuaded by more difficult access to guns. If because of that only 10 percent of them chose not to commit another crime, that would be 200 fewer violent crimes. At 1 percent, it would be 20.
That is complete speculation, of course, but is it any more realistic simply to assume the number is zero? Does it make sense to believe that denying easy, legal access to firearms to thousands of individuals with known criminal histories would have no affect? To believe that would not be speculation but simple prejudice.
What might be helpful would be more research into those who failed background checks. What was their intent?
In the meantime, it is enough to know that so many people who have disqualified themselves from gun ownership have been denied just that.
