Though I am in favor of background checks, I disagree with the assumption that all of the prevented sales were to "dangerous people". 58% were people who had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year, or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years. How many non-violent drug offenses carry such punishments?

@2 - How is it punishing them to require verification that they're law-abiding? You and I have different ideas of what constitutes punishment.

So convicted felons attempted to purchase less than 1% of the total firearms sold in Washington state? (Roughly 4 million total applications in the time period, 40,000 were rejected).

Do we have any figures (estimates) of how many firearms are sold without background checks? Do we have any figures on how many people that were denied then went on to purchase a firearm anyway? Or are we just assuming that they immediately went to a gun show and purchased a firearm there? (Even though FBI evidence shows that most crime come from friends and relatives.)

Incidentally, if a right-wing publication had published a graph like the one about NICS Background checks denials in the study, the Stranger would be all over how misleading the graph is...

(That should have read: "most crime GUNS come from friends..etc")

The largest law enforcement organization in the state, the Washington Association of Police and Sheriffs, opposes the initiative
[11] [12]. Their reasons include:
1) That WACOPS, as an organization of law enforcement officers, does not believe that I-594 will keep guns out of the hands of the criminal or the mentally ill. WACOPS believes such persons will continue to ignore the law and engage in black market transactions.
2) That responsibility for enforcing this law – conducting background checks, investigating and arresting citizens who do not comply – will fall on law enforcement, diverting already scarce resources.
3) That the restrictive compliance measures for transfers and loans of guns will cause law abiding citizens to unintentionally commit crimes and possibly be convicted of gross misdemeanors or felonies.
4) That debate exists whether I-594 would create a registry of guns and that WACOPS holds that if it does not, the background check is useless for enforcement – and that if it does, it is an infringement on the privacy rights of gun owners.

@6, I happily signed to get this initiative on the ballot, because I believe that background checks are at least somewhat effective, while not infringing on legitimate gun rights (as this study supports). However, after reading up, your #3 issue troubles me to the point that I will likely vote no. It appears that if a friend and I were shooting clay pigeons on private property, we could not legally share guns. That's an overreach. I wish 594 had stopped at purchasing.

@6 and @7 -- You (and WACOPS) might want to read I-594 before you jump to hasty conclusions. It specifically exempts transfers in cases like you describe. But let me summarize your argument: "I don't care how many lives this law would save, but if it inconveniences me in any way I'm voting against it." Thanks a bunch!

"Federal background checks, which have been in place since 1998, have prevented 40,976 gun sales to people in Washington who were legally prohibited from buying them."

So there have been 40,976 arrests then?

@6, Yes, enforcing laws is the job of the police. Do they oppose every law because "responsibility for enforcing this law ... will fall on law enforcement, diverting already scarce resources"?
Yes, some people will buy guns on the "black market" but some people do that now. The difference is that right now when they buy on the "black market" it's essentially legal. Pass this law and you can arrest both people involved in that "black market" transaction. That's why we pass laws.

@9, No, 40,976 people have been prevented from buying guns at a gun store. Pass the resolution and you can stop most of those people from then going home and buying the gun on Craigslist. Or, at least if they do try to buy it on Craigslist we can arrest them, and the seller, for breaking the law.

@10
"No, 40,976 people have been prevented from buying guns at a gun store."

And the consequences of those 40,976 attempts were?
None.
There were no consequences.

"Or, at least if they do try to buy it on Craigslist we can arrest them, and the seller, for breaking the law."

You just implied that they were not being arrested now for "breaking the law".

Of the 40,976, how many were charged with a crime? Only the ones charged and convicted were stopped.
ATF reports about 10 people per year are changed for the entire country. They do not report the number of convictions. So, stop misrepresentations.

reply to @2
" How is it punishing them to require verification that they're law-abiding?"
1) It means that you have to travel to an FFL, and pay a fee (usually $50 or more.
2) You have to do this for temporary transfers, like loaning your gun to your neighbor for a hunting trip or training class
3) You allow the government to have a complete registry of all guns owned and by who (via proxy)
4) Over half of the denials are proven wrong on appeal.
5) ATF has the option of responding with "delay" so you could be forced to wait with the gun forced to be left with the FFL
6) If the government wants to ban gun sales, merely shut off NICS and then no sales can continue.