Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seaward wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I'm not sure that's entirely true. This UK citizen was arrested and imprisoned in the US because of a website he created that supported the taliban. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35774163

It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.

Sure, right to free speech applies. And that case has nothing at all to do with racism, so I'm not sure how it's got anything to do with what I said.

Well he didn't actually commit any terrorism, he just talked about it. Surely by your standards on talking about racism, he should be protected by the first amendment?

Also, when did making racism illegal become a bad thing?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.

I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.

Nope, it does. Expressing racist or homophobic or other hateful opinions like "I hate x people; they're icky" is just expressing a personal opinion. Opinions are thoughts and thinking thoughts shouldn't be criminalizes and isn't in the US. Hate speech laws punish people for expressing "bad" opinions which is the same thing as saying that those people are thinking the wrong thoughts and that everyone needs to only think thoughts that are allowed by the government.

Hate crime laws in the US just give harsher sentencing guidelines to people who have been found guilty of committing crimes. For example if you assault somebody that's a crime and you'll be prosecuted for it. If the investigation finds evidence that the perpetrator chose the victim because of their race or sexual orientation etc and has a history of racism or homophobia etc then the assault charge can be amended to a hate crime which carries harsher sentences. The crime is still the action but the hate allows for more severe sentencing on the premise that such demonstrable motivating hatred makes the criminal a greater threat to society than a criminal that doesn't desire to commit crimes against a whole group of citizens. Hate crime legislation was controversial when it was proposed and its passage was contentious. There is ongoing debate of the benefit of hate crime legislation and if their existences is divisive and superfluous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I'm not sure that's entirely true. This UK citizen was arrested and imprisoned in the US because of a website he created that supported the taliban. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35774163

It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.

Sure, right to free speech applies. And that case has nothing at all to do with racism, so I'm not sure how it's got anything to do with what I said.

Well he didn't actually commit any terrorism, he just talked about it. Surely by your standards on talking about racism, he should be protected by the first amendment?

Also, when did making racism illegal become a bad thing?

Making a website that expresses an opinion is not illegal unless that website crosses a line and its content is not passive but actively AIDS and abets a criminal or terrorist organization. I can tweet or post or make a website that expresses an opinion that the Taliban is awesome and not be charged with a crime. If I make a website that promotes the Taliban and helps them recruit new members or anything else that benefits them that would constitute criminal behavior.

Making racism illegal is bad because racist opinions are still just opinions/thoughts and the the government doesn't have the moral or legal authority to tell people what they can and can't think and no way to enforce such laws if they passed them. Laws against racism are still laws against actions, actions that are deemed to be motivated by racism, but even racism laws can't punish somebody for being a racist until that person acts on their racism.

 General Kroll wrote:

Well he didn't actually commit any terrorism, he just talked about it. Surely by your standards on talking about racism, he should be protected by the first amendment?

Also, when did making racism illegal become a bad thing?

No. Providing material support to terrorists is just as illegal in the UK, incidentally. Regardless, the statement made was that it's not illegal to say racist things on Twitter over here; bringing up a case that has nothing at all to do with racism seems an odd refutation to that. Are there restrictions on speech in the US? Sure, some. Fewer than in the UK? Yes.

As for when making racism illegal became a bad thing, I'm tempted to say Rotherham. Racism itself is vile, sure. Making people terrified of being labeled racist for fear of prosecution has a chilling effect on speech.

Ok that's definitely enough of the first amendment discussion. It's not relevant. If you want to talk about which country thought crimes harder, then make another thread.

 r_squared wrote:
About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.

I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.

Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

POTUS is not a fething king, and many of us are thankful for that. It isn't, and never should be, the federal government's place to bring lawful organizations 'to heel'. Honestly, the belief it should be disgusts me.

Are you comfortable with the fact that an unelected special interest lobby group is able to curtail the powers of an elected representative then?

It's due to the will of the people much more so than the NRA. When Hillary Clinton was critical of Bernie Sanders voting record on gun control legislation proposals Bernie's defense was that as a senator from Vermont he had to vote in accordance to the views of his constituency. Gun ownership in Vermont is common and their state laws are fairly permissive with gun ownership. The people of Vermont like owning guns so Bernie has to vote accordingly, nobody thinks that the NRA bought Bernies votes because they didn't because they didn't need to.

Al Gore is a similar example. Look at the positions he took while campaigning for congress in Tennessee; he was a blue dog Democrat. Contrast that to his campaign positions while running for president after being Clinton's VP for 8 years and it's not surprising that he failed to win his home state of Tennessee.

There are a lot of states with lots of gun owners who want to keep their guns and they all get equal representation in the senate. That is a stronger obstacle to draconian federal firearm laws than the NRA will ever be.

 Deadshot wrote:
How is anything I said there different to what I said I said?

You mean other than when you started out saying that the child could not disengage the safety, and then shifted the goalposts to the child being unable to work the slide?

 r_squared wrote:
Kind of laborious to try and make a point, and not even a very good one. Any competent and trained individual can make a weapon ready in seconds. The only time anyone should realistically expect to have a weapon ready to fire from the safety, is in a state of high threat level.
If you're going shopping with a toddler and you have to have a firearm in that condition, then you are either in some futuristic nightmare dystopia like mega city one, or apparently any urban or extra urban area of the United States.

No, it makes the point quite well. I see you did not discuss the difficulties inherent in making a firearm ready when operating a motor vehicle, and with children

 r_squared wrote:
Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

Why would he bring the NRA to heel? Are they doing something illegal?

 r_squared wrote:
If I wished to harm Americans, I would consider the NRA an effective ally. Not only because of the loss of life caused by the ideology they support, but because they effectively polarise antipathy against the President of the US. Causing and accentuating division aids their goals.

I almost wonder if you know what the purpose of the NRA is

 r_squared wrote:
Are you comfortable with the fact that an unelected special interest lobby group is able to curtail the powers of an elected representative then?

If you honestly believe that then you are really limiting the possabilities for rational discussion. As a related point, if you believe that "an unelected special interest lobby group" comprised of US citizens who are concerned with protecting a fundamental right enshrined in US law and believe that these people have no place in the US political system (and thus removing their First Amendment rights) then do you believe that anyone outside the US should want to share their thoughts and opinions on our laws?

BTW popular support for stricter gun control (as in the opinions of citizens of the US, not special interest groups) is at an all time low.

 r_squared wrote:
Personally I'd prefer it that people just came out and said they liked, and enjoyed using guns rather than trying to justify their ownership.

What makes you think that we can't, and haven't, been doing both?

 r_squared wrote:
TBH, it's not my problem, and again, as long as the population of your country is happy with the situation, then that's upto you, and fine with me.

Wonderful, thank you for your time and sharing your opinions with us.

I think this whole subject is a strange thing for us who live in counties where being able to carry a weapon in a holster or able to transport in your vehicle other than going to the gun club.

I can understand the idea that some people feel that more guns are better so that the average citizen can respond to a deadly threat in society = spontaneous militia.

I just cannot shake the feeling that just like how narcissists are drawn to politics, people who like the whole power thing with guns are drawn to them.
There is this feeling that the people who are tempted to use the weapon less appropriately would outnumber those who would.
Would not the ease of access for the more crazy/criminal elements to guns outweigh the benefit for the citizenry to access them for defense and leisure based collecting or target practice?

In the end, the kid getting hold of the gun is no different than getting hold of a sharp knife: they can hurt themselves, hurt you and it is far easier keeping it away from them than trying to take it from them!
I should not quite say "no different" little harder to avoid a bullet.
(Had this happen where my toddler had fished a steak-knife out of the dish-washer and was "chewing on it" and when I tried to get it away, he started waving it around... locks put on washer next day and luckily no wounds to treat.)

 Talizvar wrote:
I just cannot shake the feeling that just like how narcissists are drawn to politics, people who like the whole power thing with guns are drawn to them.
There is this feeling that the people who are tempted to use the weapon less appropriately would outnumber those who would.

Any evidence to back up your feelings here? If not you are just engaging in unhelpful speculation based on misconceptions of those who are gunowners

 Talizvar wrote:
Would not the ease of access for the more crazy/criminal elements to guns outweigh the benefit for the citizenry to access them for defense and leisure based collecting or target practice?

Absolutely. You know, except for the federal laws that prohibit the ownership if firearms by the "crazy" or "criminal". And while correlation does not equal causation the fact that gun ownership has been growing as violent crime has been diminishing should give you some indication that this assumption is incorrect.

Well, this has been a whirlwind of discussion about stuff that we don't have here. I'm not going to touch it with a stick.


While she got shot, I'm glad that's what happened (and she survived) and not the alternative, where the child shot themselves with the gun she left with them.

Dreadclaw...a person's feelings/opinions don't need facts to back them up...that's kind of the point...

Sometimes people have those "gut feelings" that jave nothing to do with dacts.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I just cannot shake the feeling that just like how narcissists are drawn to politics, people who like the whole power thing with guns are drawn to them.
There is this feeling that the people who are tempted to use the weapon less appropriately would outnumber those who would.

Any evidence to back up your feelings here? If not you are just engaging in unhelpful speculation based on misconceptions of those who are gunowners

Hey! You identified my intent that it was speculation, though you label it as unhelpful.
Oh, I am sure getting that evidence will be every bit as difficult as you can probably speculate.
Though they do point to a few papers I was aware of here: https://samanthasprole.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/a-psychological-perspective-on-gun-violence-in-the-united-states/
Or this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect
Though this is a bit more applicable: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201208/the-tradeoffs-gun-ownership-0
Which does happen to mention some 19,000 gun accidents.
All this helps paint the picture of why to feel attracted to guns and that is typically those who are aggressive, feeling impotent or powerless, you know, the more vulnerable elements of society who have some discipline issues.

 Talizvar wrote:
Would not the ease of access for the more crazy/criminal elements to guns outweigh the benefit for the citizenry to access them for defense and leisure based collecting or target practice?

Absolutely. You know, except for the federal laws that prohibit the ownership if firearms by the "crazy" or "criminal". And while correlation does not equal causation the fact that gun ownership has been growing as violent crime has been diminishing should give you some indication that this assumption is incorrect.

Ah yes, you now wish to point out there are laws to prohibit the crazy or criminal from ownership... which is a select few of that group have been proven to be so.
This open letter is particularly interesting: http://www.fairwarning.org/2013/05/an-open-letter-to-gun-owners/
I would look a bit into that link on "The trade-offs of gun ownership." and see that the statistics are not so rosy on keeping crime down based on gun ownership, it is rather the opposite in fact.

But hey, it has become something of a cultural mindset and identity of sorts where: "I'll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands."
Which in turn, makes it perfectly acceptable to accept these risks of accidents happening since a gun is to be treated like any other tool like a knife or nail gun.
Completely safe when properly used...

Gun sales have been increasing, but gun ownership has been decreasing. In other words, more guns are being bought by fewer people.

How this correlates to crime reduction I don't know. A person can only use one or two guns at the same time, and it doesn't seem likely to help them reduce crime more if they have six guns rather than two..

Of course, by the more guns = less crime measurement, all the other countries like Japan, the UK and France, etc. should be seething cauldrons of vioence and murder, but they aren't. This would seem to suggest that guns are not the principle determinant of crime.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Gun sales have been increasing, but gun ownership has been decreasing. In other words, more guns are being bought by fewer people.

How this correlates to crime reduction I don't know. A person can only use one or two guns at the same time, and it doesn't seem likely to help them reduce crime more if they have six guns rather than two..

Of course, by the more guns = less crime measurement, all the other countries like Japan, the UK and France, etc. should be seething cauldrons of vioence and murder, but they aren't. This would seem to suggest that guns are not the principle determinant of crime.

You're misconstruing the facts and the argument. FBI stats show an increase in NICS checks over the past decade as more guns have been sold to private citizens, this increase in the number of guns owned by citizens has come during the same time period that FBI crime stats show a steady reduction in violent crime, including crimes committed with guns. Correlation is not causation but the fact remains that there is no evidence to support the claim that more guns equals more crime. Just like every time a state expands concealed carry there people that proclaim that it will lead to gunfights in the streets and other hyperbolic predictions of increased gun crimes but the fact remains that giving concealed carry permit holders that legal right to carry in more places hasn't led to any increase in gun crimes.

Guns are inanimate objects it's literally impossible for a gun to make somebody do anything. Whether a law abiding citizen owns one gun or dozens they do not become any more dangerous or more likely to commit crimes.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.

I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.

Nope, it does. Expressing racist or homophobic or other hateful opinions like "I hate x people; they're icky" is just expressing a personal opinion. Opinions are thoughts and thinking thoughts shouldn't be criminalizes and isn't in the US. Hate speech laws punish people for expressing "bad" opinions which is the same thing as saying that those people are thinking the wrong thoughts and that everyone needs to only think thoughts that are allowed by the government.

Hate crime laws in the US just give harsher sentencing guidelines to people who have been found guilty of committing crimes. For example if you assault somebody that's a crime and you'll be prosecuted for it. If the investigation finds evidence that the perpetrator chose the victim because of their race or sexual orientation etc and has a history of racism or homophobia etc then the assault charge can be amended to a hate crime which carries harsher sentences. The crime is still the action but the hate allows for more severe sentencing on the premise that such demonstrable motivating hatred makes the criminal a greater threat to society than a criminal that doesn't desire to commit crimes against a whole group of citizens. Hate crime legislation was controversial when it was proposed and its passage was contentious. There is ongoing debate of the benefit of hate crime legislation and if their existences is divisive and superfluous.

That is not thoughtcrime. Thought crime is making those thoughts illegal, whether or not you express them, hence the name. Our laws say that people are perfectly fine to be racist in their own heads, but what they are not allowed to do is to express those thoughts in a way which promotes violence against those they do not like.

Perhaps the reason why gun crime is going down is fewer people owning them.

I would look a bit into that link on "The trade-offs of gun ownership." and see that the statistics are not so rosy on keeping crime down based on gun ownership, it is rather the opposite in fact.

Which explains why Switzerland and Finland are crime ridden cesspools. Related, ironically is...

This would seem to suggest that guns are not the principle determinant of crime.

Yet this argument suddenly becomes irrelevant when its the anti-control side saying it....

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps the reason why gun crime is going down is fewer people owning them.

Doubtful as states with high gun ownership rates and high issuance rates of concealed carry permits don't have high levels of gun crime and municipalities that have very strict gun control laws have very high incidence rates of gun crime.

Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

I do. Most (as in the very vast majority) 'gun crimes' are not committed by gun collectors.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.

Compared to the incentive of going to jail, i'd say it's not the strongest deterent to crime.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.

As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.

As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.

Are there statistics of firearms legally purchased from private citizens used in crimes? I am curious about that, since it seems to be such a sticking point for some folks.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.

As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.

Are there statistics of firearms legally purchased from private citizens used in crimes? I am curious about that, since it seems to be such a sticking point for some folks.

Irrelevant really, since it has nothing to do with the argument that gun collectors have to maintain the ability to pass background checks in order to buy new guns.

Well I think it is relevant. A large amount of effort has been placed in closing the "gun-show loophole", and I think we should see if there really is any point in it.

We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who possess the firearms illegally, more then 90% per various sources, so how many of those are firearms bought from someone who legally did not complete a background check?

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.

As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.

Only if they do the sale face to face and even then state laws would need to be followed. For instance regardless of whether a pistol is purchased from a dealer or an individual here in NC the buyer must have a current concealed carry permit or a pistol purchase permit to legally make the purchase and both require a clean criminal background.

Additionally all out of state purchases would have to be mailed through a FFL, which could still be a private citizen if that person had an 03 FFL and the gun was C&R eligible but the 03 FFL also requires that the licensee maintain a clean criminal record.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Well I think it is relevant. A large amount of effort has been placed in closing the "gun-show loophole", and I think we should see if there really is any point in it.

We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who possess the firearms illegally, more then 90% per various sources, so how many of those are firearms bought from someone who legally did not complete a background check?

A gun can be legally purchased without a NICS check and in such an instance wouldn't constitute an illegally obtained gun if it was used in a crime.

Again, irrelevant.

I'm not talking about criminals, I'm not talking about crimes.

The argument was made that a gun collector has to maintain the ability to pass background checks if he wants to buy more guns. That argument is wrong.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well I think it is relevant. A large amount of effort has been placed in closing the "gun-show loophole", and I think we should see if there really is any point in it.

We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who possess the firearms illegally, more then 90% per various sources, so how many of those are firearms bought from someone who legally did not complete a background check?

A gun can be legally purchased without a NICS check and in such an instance wouldn't constitute an illegally obtained gun if it was used in a crime.

But a person who was not allowed to possess a firearm, who purchased a weapon through such a means, would still be in illegal possession of said firearm, and it would still be illegally obtained, from the buyers POV.

That is the whole point of the loop hole argument isn't it? To prevent people who aren't allowed to possess firearms from purchasing them without completing the check.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Kimber's operating manuals are available online for full details of the safety features.

Having read those, I think the most likely scenario is that the woman loaded and cocked the gun, and let down the hammer on to a chambered round. The toddler knocked it off the seat, and the shock when it hit the floor cause the firing pin to strike the round in the chamber.

"Series II" Kimber pistols have an additional safety feature that locks the firing pin block until the grip safety has been correctly disengaged. Perhaps this was a Series I pistol.

I believe that Frazzled owns a Kimber and could give us more information on these points.

You summoned the Dark One?
All Kimber 1911 designs have a grips safety. They have two pistols now: a .380 and a baby 933 that may be different. What was pictured was definitely a 1911 frame.

She could have had it cocked and locked with the safety on, and the munchkin could have knocked that safety off. Kimbers have very clean triggers, typically in the 5lbish range. That sounds like a lot but a shaking hand can put one in the dirt (I've done it, ultra carry Kimbers with SD loads will make my hand shake after about ten rounds). OR the safety could have clicked off. That can easily happen and even with a good Galco holster it would occasionally occur. The big racegun safety they have is more amenable to it and its recommended you get a holster better designed for it.

Frankly it would be far more difficult for a toddler to cock that hammer back. Its relatively stiff and there's not much leverage. But NEVER PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT PAST A KID. Always assume it can be done and take steps.

She was an idiot and she paid for it. Thankfully no one died.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?

Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.

As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.

Its only wrong if a gun collector only wants to collect guns from private citizens willing to sell guns in face to face transactions without background checks and both buyer and seller are official residents of states that allow such transactions to be done. That creates a very narrow and specific subset of gun collectors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well I think it is relevant. A large amount of effort has been placed in closing the "gun-show loophole", and I think we should see if there really is any point in it.

We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who possess the firearms illegally, more then 90% per various sources, so how many of those are firearms bought from someone who legally did not complete a background check?

A gun can be legally purchased without a NICS check and in such an instance wouldn't constitute an illegally obtained gun if it was used in a crime.

But a person who was not allowed to possess a firearm, who purchased a weapon through such a means, would still be in illegal possession of said firearm, and it would still be illegally obtained, from the buyers POV.

That is the whole point of the loop hole argument isn't it? To prevent people who aren't allowed to possess firearms from purchasing them without completing the check.

To my knowledge nobody tracks that data. The FBI could track such data if local and state law enforcement provided that data to them from every case of a crime involving a firearm but I don't think there is a current legal requirement that they file those reports with the FBI.