Should gun owners be required to carry liability insurance?

[Tired_and_Cranky]

DrDeth, you keep asserting that over 90% of guns used in crime are “stolen,” e.g.:

@DrDeth

Actually few are lost, 96% are stolen.

Yes, there are a lot of stolen guns.

@DrDeth

Yes, estimates vary and so it’s 3-11%, which makes it a average of 7%, still it’s a tiny % of guns used in crimes that are purchased legally from a gun store.

Yes, some guns used in crimes were purchased not stolen. But if they were bought froma fence, they are not purchased legaly from a gun store.

My data does show that. Quibbling that it could be as high as 11% doesnt make the bacis fatc change- most guns used in crimes are not purchased legally at a gun store.

You keep equating guns not bought legally from a gun store with stolen. They are not the same thing. As I explained above:

@Tired_and_Cranky

Do you believe that guns can be purchased legally in America only through a gun store?if so, you are wrong. Do you believe that buying a weapon is the only way in America to possess a firearm legally? If so, you are wrong. Please stop asserting that every gun not bought thorough a gun store was stolen or that all such guns were illegally obtained. This is wrong, and you are saying it either because you are ignorant of the truth or lying about it.

You can get weapons in America legally by buying them from a gun store, buying them from a private party, trading with a private party for guns, or borrowing them.

If you followed the links on your citation to your sources, you would have found the Chicago Crime Lab study here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001486

That study, which is one of the sources of your misused statistic, says: “60% of [surveyed criminals’] guns were obtained by purchase or trade. Theft is unusual.”

I will assert again, based on sources relied upon for your irrelevant statistic, that 60% of crime guns were bought, not stolen. I don’t have access to the full study, so I don’t have further information. I don’t know how many additional guns were borrowed. I have no idea what the number of legally purchased guns that are used in crime is. It seems, based on your incorrect assertions, that you don’t know either. Please stop pretending that you do.

Today, I gave you one example that you are wrong. I hoped you and others would realize based on that example that illegally obtained does not equal stolen. Instead, you are doubling down. Your own sources either fail to confirm or actually dispute that most guns are stolen.

@DrDeth

Not a “repeated assertion” a cited *fact.*PolitiFact | MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: Tiny fraction of crimes committed with legal guns

From that article:

It found that among inmates who had a gun when they committed their crime (16 percent of all prisoners), about 11 percent had bought the firearm at a retail store, a pawn shop, a flea market or a gun show. Another 37 percent had gotten it from a friend or family member. About 40 percent said they got it illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer or by stealing it.

But the same caveats apply. A retail purchase might not have been legal and a gift from a family member might not be illegal.

So, 11% bought it at retail, 37% got it from a friend or family member, accounting for 48% of guns. Only 40% were obtained by theft or black market transactions, so at best, this suggests that not stealing guns is more prevalent than stealing guns.

The other source for that article is the Chicago Crime Lab study I linked to above, which says that 60% of crime guns are obtained by purchase or trade, not theft.

@DrDeth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.8fd771bba91c
*They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else. The researchers were primarily interested in how these guns made their way from a legal purchase — at a firearm dealer or via a private sale — to the scene of the crime.
*

From that article:

More than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to Fabio’s research.

Were the remaining ~70% not stolen?

Also telling, from the same article:

But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren’t reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.

How many of those were falsely reported as stolen even though they were given, loaned or sold to the criminal (i.e., not stolen)?

@DrDeth

PolitiFact | Is most gun crime committed by those who illegally possess guns?
I* think it’s safe to say that a low percentage of criminal assaults and robberies are committed with guns that were acquired by legal purchase from a gun store,"*

This discusses a related but not identical question - whether the crime gun was obtained legally or not. Not all guns obtained illegally are stolen and you were discussing stolen guns. If you can’t understand the difference between illegally obtained and stolen, I suggest reading comprehension lessons. This source also refers to the same studies above, so for the reasons discussed above, it does not support your point.

@DrDeth

Then you try to refute that cited FACT with a single anecdote. :rolleyes:

If unicorns shit ice cream…:dubious:

It is an illustrative example of an illegally obtained firearm that was not stolen, something that you are unwilling or unable to understand.

[HurricaneDitka]

@kanicbird

I can see it succeed if one can make the case that the owner did not properly secure it. For instance leaving it visible on the front seat of a unlocked car with windows down, as opposed to leaving the car keys visible on the front seat of a unlocked car with windows down. It is reasonable to assume that either item (gun or car) could be stolen and used for it’s intended purposes (the gun to kill or sell, or the car to drive or sell). It’s that killing part of a gun’s intended purpose that could open up the owner to liability.

In fact that type of set up is so obvious to be stolen the police can not use it to catch the bad guys, because it usually falls under entrapment, which is a situation were a generally non-bad guy may be tempted enough in the moment to do something they normally would not. So leaving the gun in a position where it would be entrapment if the police did it should open the person up for liability & possibly criminal charges beyond leaving the weapon in a publicly accessible place, but what his actions reasonably lead to (someone taking and using the gun - reasonable expected outcome). That reasonable expected outcome of killing someone is not present with stealing a car.

I think most of the legal analysis in the quoted post is flawed, but let’s just focus on this bit right here for a moment:

“that type of set up is so obvious to be stolen the police can not use it to catch the bad guys, because it usually falls under entrapment”

As it turns out, the SDMB had a thread on this subject a while back. It was asked then “Has anyone sucessfully gotten out of a “bait car” theft using entrapment as a reason?” and no one was able to offer a real-world example of that happening. The general consensus was that it was a perfectly valid and legal law enforcement tactic. Do you have a credible cite for your claim that “it usually falls under entrapment”?

[DrDeth]

@Tired_and_Cranky

You keep equating guns not bought legally from a gun store with stolen. They are not the same thing. As I explained above:

Today, I gave you one example that you are wrong. I hoped you and others would realize based on that example that illegally obtained does not equal stolen. Instead, you are doubling down. Your own sources either fail to confirm or actually dispute that most guns are stolen. …

So, 11% bought it at retail, 37% got it from a friend or family member, accounting for 48% of guns. Only 40% were obtained by theft or black market transactions, so at best, this suggests that not stealing guns is more prevalent than stealing guns.

The other source for that article is the Chicago Crime Lab study I linked to above, which says that 60% of crime guns are obtained by purchase or trade, not theft. …

It is an illustrative example of an illegally obtained firearm that was not stolen, something that you are unwilling or unable to understand.
.

"it’s a tiny % of guns used in crimes that are purchased legally from a gun store. "

I am not claiming that most guns used by criminal are stolen. My original post did say something along those lines, but I later clarified- over and over and over that very few guns used by criminals are purchased legally.

One anecdotal example does not prove I am wrong. My cites prove me correct.

Again- The vast majority of guns are by criminals are not obtained legally. Many are stolen, some are obtained illegally from Straw purchasers, some are bought from fences (but were stolen and sold to fences), etc.

Criminals do not commonly go into licensed gun stores and buy their guns- they obtain then illegally.

No, your math makes an assumption- that the “friend or family member” is selling the gun legally to the criminal, which is unlikely.

Yes, many criminals obtain their guns by purchase- from a fence or from a straw buyer- both of which are illegal, and in the case of a fence, that gun was stolen, no?

Somewhere around 30-40 % of a criminals guns are stolen by him. Of the rest, all but a tiny % are obtained thru some other ILLEGAL method. Some are stolen by another criminal and sold to him, which indeed are stolen guns. Some are sold by a straw man, which again- is illegal.

I understand that quite well. I have stated that many, many times here. Altho theft is the most common means from a criminal to obtain his gun illegally (I include buying a stolen gun from a fence as “theft”) there are several other methods a criminal can use to *illegally *obtain a gun.

Criminals (by and large) do not obtain their guns thru legal means. This means that your ridiculous scheme would be ill-advised, unworkable, and be punishing the wrong person- the honest, law abiding gun owner. Which you know full well, as the idea behind your scheme is simply to price guns out of the hands of the honest, law abiding gun owner. It is simply yet another poorly disguised gun grab.

[DrDeth]

@HurricaneDitka

I think most of the legal analysis in the quoted post is flawed, but let’s just focus on this bit right here for a moment:

“that type of set up is so obvious to be stolen the police can not use it to catch the bad guys, because it usually falls under entrapment”

As it turns out, the SDMB had a thread on this subject a while back. It was asked then “Has anyone sucessfully gotten out of a “bait car” theft using entrapment as a reason?” and no one was able to offer a real-world example of that happening. The general consensus was that it was a perfectly valid and legal law enforcement tactic. Do you have a credible cite for your claim that “it usually falls under entrapment”?

Here’s a good PDF study about entrapment:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2073&context=dlj

[Ranb]

So if a law is passed that requires insurance for anyone who possesses a gun, should it exempt the police and military?

Too many laws exempt the police. For example when New Jersey passed a bill requiring guns to be personalized, it seemed to be designed to fail. The police were exempt and only smart guns would be allowed to be sold after a certain date. Knowing that the police would also benefit from smart gun tech, it makes no sense at all to exempt them unless the people who want it used know it won’t work and are only requiring it to ban guns.

Ranb