# Slowing gun violence without using gun control/elimination **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963 "2019-05-14T18:25:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/61 "2019-05-16T14:23:28Z")
> [@bump](#): > > A question I have, and didn’t find a really straight-up answer to, is how much gun violence outside of suicide is committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons), versus people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place? > > That seems like the most pertinent question here- if it’s really a matter of certain demographics using illegal guns, then that’s a very different problem to solve than something more societally pervasive. > > For example, it seems that targeting policies and education toward the black community, and in particular toward black men might pay dividends versus worrying about rednecks out in the country, according to [this fact sheet.](https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2017/images/en_artwork/Fact_Sheets/2017NCVRW_Homicide_508.pdf) Not because there’s anything inherently problematic about black men (not trying to be racist here), but because something like 6% of the population accounts for nearly 40% of the murders in the country, while the other 94% accounts for the other 60%. That’s absolutely staggering, IMO, and I have a feeling that our collective hesitance to be perceived as racist is something that’s preventing this from being addressed effectively. According to a [BJS](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf)source of the guns prisoners had on them during a crime 10% were obtained via a retail purchase, 25.3% were obtained from a friend or relative, 43% were bought off the underground markets 6.4% were stolen, and 17% were obtained in other ways. Presumably almost all of the 10% purchased at retail were legal purchases and some portion of the 25% purchased from family and friends were legal purchases. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/62 "2019-05-16T15:33:57Z")
> [@bump](#): > > A question I have, and didn’t find a really straight-up answer to, is how much gun violence outside of suicide is committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons), versus people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place? I previously read the cite that puddleglum provided, though I’m not sure how much I would extrapolate from that. What is known is that the rate of firearm homicide and homicide in general tends to cluster in areas and is not nearly evenly distributed. [This is a good article that describes this with lots of infographics I found compelling.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/09/special-report-fixing-gun-violence-in-america) > [@](#): > > Half of America’s gun homicides in 2015 were clustered in just 127 cities and towns, according to a new geographic analysis by the Guardian, even though they contain less than a quarter of the nation’s population. > > … > > Four and a half million Americans live in areas of these cities with the highest numbers of gun homicide, which are marked by intense poverty, low levels of education, and racial segregation. Geographically, these neighborhood areas are small: a total of about 1,200 neighborhood census tracts, which, laid side by side, would fit into an area just 42 miles wide by 42 miles long. > > The problem they face is devastating. Though these neighborhood areas contain just 1.5% of the country’s population, they saw 26% of America’s total gun homicides. > > … > > In Chicago, analysts working with police department data found that, over a six-year period, 70% of nonfatal shootings and 46% of gun homicides happened within a sprawling social network that included just 6% of Chicago’s total population. > > Similar analyses in Oakland and New Orleans found even smaller percentages of residents driving the majority of the violence. In Oakland, analysts found that networks of just 1,000 to 1,200 high-risk people, about .3% of Oakland’s population, were involved in about 60% of the city’s murders. In New Orleans, just 600 to 700 people, less than 1% of the city’s population, were involved in more than 50% of fatal incidents. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/63 "2019-05-16T15:43:08Z")
> [@bump](#): > > A question I have, and didn’t find a really straight-up answer to, is how much gun violence outside of suicide is committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. not so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or convicted felons), versus people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place? Not specific to gun violence, but - > [@](#): > > - Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active > criminal justice status at the time of their arrest. > This included 18% on probation, 12% on release > pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on > parole. > > - Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest > record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a > felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of > those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest > record. > > - A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior > conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior > felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction > for a violent felony. [Cite](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt). If that is what you are asking. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/64 "2019-05-16T15:49:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not specific to gun violence… You’re right-it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/65 "2019-05-16T18:41:23Z")
Very good that you read the post. Did you have better figures to answer **bump** ’s question? While you’re at it, feel free to read the highlighted portion of this > [@](#): > > …otherwise law-abiding people who are cleared to buy guns (i.e. \*\*not \*\*so mentally ill that they fail NICS, or **convicted felons** )… I’m not sure if I can explain how people who are convicted of felonies are “convicted felons”, so for that part, you are on your own. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/66 "2019-05-16T19:34:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I previously read the cite that puddleglum provided, though I’m not sure how much I would extrapolate from that. What is known is that the rate of firearm homicide and homicide in general tends to cluster in areas and is not nearly evenly distributed. [This is a good article that describes this with lots of infographics I found compelling.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/09/special-report-fixing-gun-violence-in-america) That’s exactly the sort of thing I’m curious about- it seems like the sort of hardcore gun crime that drives the statistics is extremely concentrated in certain areas and certain people. That’s where the majority of the effort should be placed. What forms those efforts should take, I don’t know. I hesitate to endorse the idea that ready availability of guns is a significant part of the problem- they’re no MORE readily available in those areas than anywhere else in the country, yet gun crime rates everywhere else are considerably lower. That sort of points to regulating guns as a band-aid type solution that doesn’t treat any of the underlying causes, and that doesn’t even really stem the bleeding because a majority of the guns aren’t bought through channels amenable to being regulated by the legal system. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/67 "2019-05-16T19:41:41Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Why do you think that private businesses couldn’t elect to post “no guns allowed” signs? They do. Does it do any good? Was in Kansas for a funeral last year. Apparently the law there is that if a business _doesn’t_ have such a sign, you have the legal right to bring your gun inside. I can tell you that it’s very weird to see a sign like that on a mortuary. So back to my question: there are places where such signs are the norm. Do they do any good? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/68 "2019-05-16T19:48:52Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Well, the rate of firearm deaths has been cut in half from the early 90s. > > [https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-2.png](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-2.png) > > Potential causes of the decline include things like easy access to abortion and removal of lead from gasoline. There is still a lot of lead around from the days when it was in gasoline, paint, pipes, etc. (The lead from gasoline is still abundant in soil near highways. In urban areas in particular (play areas in rural areas don’t tend to be next to highways), kids play in the dirt, ingest the lead, etc.) One possibility is a committed national program of lead removal from dirt, paint, etc. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/69 "2019-05-17T00:58:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > For an off-the-wall idea, instead of trying to crack down on student bullying, why not encourage student _fighting_, i.e. the teacher says “if someone is bullying you, you have the right to defend yourself with physical but not deadly force.” You may get more fistfights but fewer shootings. I agree. The problem with anti-bullying initiatives is that children grow up without learning how to deal with bullies and instead rely on the teachers to do it for them. Bullies are wimps. Pop them once in the nose and they will find someone else to screw with. We all learned that in the 80s/90s, but today that is frowned upon. ---
**Author:** ![Lubricious\_Integument](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lubricious\_Integument](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lubricious_Integument)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/70 "2019-05-17T01:26:53Z")
Sex education classes in school seem to help reduce rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs. Maybe firearms education in school could help reduce firearm related violence. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/71 "2019-05-17T02:47:35Z")
Something more or less free- define “gun dealer” by law. Make it say, 12 guns a year. if you sell or transfer more than 12 guns a year, you are a dealer and must register as one, and must do background checks on all sales. Totally legal and constitutional. The non-NRA gun owners wouldn’t oppose it either. Harris was talking about doing something like this, but either she misspoke or she didn’t understand the way the current federal laws work. This would put a stop to many “straw man sales”, where guys go in, buy legally hundreds of guns a year, then sell them out of their trunks (and no not so much at gun shows, but I am sure that has happened) . This would close 90% of the so-called “gun show loophole”. It would leave as legal things like a widow being allowed to own her husbands guns, or a father giving one to his son on his 18th birthday, or a couple of collectors trading a gun or two. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/72 "2019-05-17T02:48:43Z")
> [@Lubricious\_Integument](#): > > Sex education classes in school seem to help reduce rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs. > > Maybe firearms education in school could help reduce firearm related violence. That wouldn’t be a bad idea, and would certainly reduce gun accidents. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/73 "2019-05-17T03:14:31Z")
Mental health has always been an issue, our culture and gun availability mean mental outrages can be more destructive. Diagnosing and caring for people with mental issues is cost effective. Whatever a seeming increase in cost now will be rewarded in a productive citizen in the future or at least less cost in care for a net advantage. Same reason we educate people with Down’s Syndrome. It is practical, it is also humane. Also, less school shootings. So, bonus. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/74 "2019-05-17T03:15:51Z")
> [@Lubricious\_Integument](#): > > Sex education classes in school seem to help reduce rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs. > > Maybe firearms education in school could help reduce firearm related violence. So, remember that recent synagogue shooting, where the guy only killed one person because his gun jammed? I’m not sure teaching that guy how to clear a jam faster would have improved things. ---
**Author:** ![Lubricious\_Integument](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lubricious\_Integument](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lubricious_Integument)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/75 "2019-05-17T12:12:03Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, remember that recent synagogue shooting, where the guy only killed one person because his gun jammed? > > I’m not sure teaching that guy how to clear a jam faster would have improved things. I’m not sure firearms education includes topics like “Chapter 3: How to clear a jam faster” ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/76 "2019-05-17T12:21:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Something more or less free- define “gun dealer” by law. Make it say, 12 guns a year. if you sell or transfer more than 12 guns a year, you are a dealer and must register as one, and must do background checks on all sales. Totally legal and constitutional. The non-NRA gun owners wouldn’t oppose it either. I think this meets the OP’s definition of gun control, but I question our ability to let a private person sell a fixed number of guns without a background check or other documentation, and still ensure that they don’t sell more than 12 in a year. There’s a trick to this, and I know this because I recently served on a Grand Jury. In order for the police to charge you with selling drugs, they have to observe you in the act of selling drugs, and can only charge you with the exact amount of drugs they observed you selling. Instead, they usually charge someone with “possession with the intent to distribute” which does not require direct observation of a deal, just confirmation that you possess illegal drugs. For guns, without documentation of every sale, the police would have to directly observe you selling more than 12 guns, in order to charge you with selling more than 12 guns in a year. Given that guns aren’t sold in bunches, that’s unlikely, and there is no such thing as possession with intent to sell for guns. If background checks are a valid way to ensure that criminals don’t get guns, make them required for all sales. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/77 "2019-05-17T18:44:30Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I think this meets the OP’s definition of gun control, but I question our ability to let a private person sell a fixed number of guns without a background check or other documentation, and still ensure that they don’t sell more than 12 in a year. > > There’s a trick to this, and I know this because I recently served on a Grand Jury. In order for the police to charge you with selling drugs, they have to observe you in the act of selling drugs, and can only charge you with the exact amount of drugs they observed you selling. Instead, they usually charge someone with “possession with the intent to distribute” which does not require direct observation of a deal, just confirmation that you possess illegal drugs. > > For guns, without documentation of every sale, the police would have to directly observe you selling more than 12 guns, in order to charge you with selling more than 12 guns in a year. Given that guns aren’t sold in bunches, that’s unlikely, and there is no such thing as possession with intent to sell for guns. > > If background checks are a valid way to ensure that criminals don’t get guns, make them required for all sales. The ATF already knows most of these miscreants. But no, here’s all you have to do- finds some 20 guns used by criminals in crimes, track them to Mr Strawman. Now, he can say he sold them- in which case he has violated my new proposed law. Or he becomes a suspect in those murders. In any case, a ATF undercover agent or three would simply buy over a dozen guns in a short period, and \*viola! \* The reason why we shouldn’t make them required for all sales is that private persons cant do background checks, thus all gun sales have to go thru a dealer, who often charges large sums. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/78 "2019-05-17T19:26:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The ATF already knows most of these miscreants. But no, here’s all you have to do- finds some 20 guns used by criminals in crimes, track them to Mr Strawman. Now, he can say he sold them- in which case he has violated my new proposed law. Or he becomes a suspect in those murders. > > In any case, a ATF undercover agent or three would simply buy over a dozen guns in a short period, and \*viola! > \* This can work, though it’s a lot of law enforcement time and effort. I’d be in favor of doing it regardless of any other efforts. > [@](#): > > The reason why we shouldn’t make them required for all sales is that private persons cant do background checks, thus all gun sales have to go thru a dealer, who often charges large sums. While they often charge large sums, there’s no reason they can’t be prevented from charging large sums as part of their license agreement. Conceptually, a dealer should be able to run a profitable side business of providing background checks without charging an outrageous fee. It should also be possible, at least conceivable, for a person to get a background check that lasts longer than a single transaction. I get a background check, it’s good for the next 90 days. That way, at least, one wouldn’t need a new check for every purchase. Just enter the details of the approval in the transfer form. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/79 "2019-05-17T19:35:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The ATF already knows most of these miscreants. But no, here’s all you have to do- finds some 20 guns used by criminals in crimes, track them to Mr Strawman. Now, he can say he sold them- in which case he has violated my new proposed law. Or he becomes a suspect in those murders. > > In any case, a ATF undercover agent or three would simply buy over a dozen guns in a short period, and \*viola! > \* > > The reason why we shouldn’t make them required for all sales is that private persons cant do background checks, thus all gun sales have to go thru a dealer, who often charges large sums. Strawman purchases are already illegal, no need to change the law to go after them, only need to change level of proprietorial zeal. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963/80 "2019-05-17T19:48:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Are there ways to effect the rate of gun violence without going anywhere near the gun control controversy? Judging by the replies, no. And looking at the question, it’s an inherent problem when discussing the issue. Any talk about “underlying issues” risks becoming a load of feel-good mush in no time at all. Or tptally off the wall. How about listing some of these issues? My brain is stuck and I can’t think of any. As for the OP, gun control provokes controversy in the USA. Mainly because the pro-gun crowd quickly - and perhaps deliberately - confuse gun control with gun prohibition. Thanks to the loosely worded Second Amendment that pro-gun lawyers can interpret as they please, this obscures the fact that gun controil is in fact a good idea. I am surprised to read that a gun shop can sell a gun by default if the background check is not completed within 3 days, etc., and that the checks seem to be very perfunctory in some cases. Gun control does not affect criminals, of course, since they use \ illegal channels. But it seems like a good idea to me to keep guns out of the hands of weirdos by carrying out proper background checks. Having said that, I’ll prepare for sacks of hate e-mail written in virtual purple ink. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slowing-gun-violence-without-using-gun-control-elimination/833963.md?page=5)