According to a BJSsource 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.
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.
You’re right-it isn’t.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That wouldn’t be a bad idea, and would certainly reduce gun accidents.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
Strawman purchases are already illegal, no need to change the law to go after them, only need to change level of proprietorial zeal.
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 <gasp> 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.