Very interesting. It has some surprising data. Looks like age and education are more closely tied to criminal gun use than race. Also only 4 percent of burglaries were committed with a firearm.
All of these guys are “bad guys” in my opinion and based on how they acquired a firearm - I would paraphrase Mr. LaPierre:
“Behind every bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
(who was irresponsible in selling, storing or lending the firearm)
It’s Because I’m Black, Isn’t It?
Universal registration would allow law enforcement- after the fact- to punish people for doing an unregistered transfer after the person receiving the gun gets caught committing a felony with it. Given the number of people who routinely aid and abet law-breaking friends, relatives and spouses, that’s not exactly the dragnet you seem to picture. At most it would be a sort of tax on the illicit transfer of firearms, born by people who already accept going to prison as a part of life. To say nothing of the guns that might be flat-out stolen from their legal owners. The difference between guns and cars is that a gun doesn’t have a big bright license plate that can be seen and checked any time it’s in public. The saying goes, “It’s only a crime when you get caught”.
Are you saying that if (a) guns were required to be registered and (b) stolen guns needed to be reported as stolen lest the original owners be at least partially responsible for crimes committed with the stolen guns, then (c) a statistically large number of otherwise law-abiding citizens wouldn’t bother reporting guns as stolen?
Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that if a gun was registered to it’s legal owner and then got stolen, the registration would simply dead-end with the theft report, until someone actually got caught with the stolen gun.
Ah, okay. Well, it does allow the chance to prosecute for the gun theft if the perp is ever caught with it, but I doubt that’s any kind of a deterrent, particularly if he’s planning on shooting somebody with it. And, it means the owner might get the gun back some day, but again, that’s going to be a mighty slim chance.
If a gun is stolen from an owner with homeowners/renters insurance who files a claim, does the insurance company require any proof of ownership - like a bill of sale with a serial number?
Perhaps you are misreading.
The top two sources (1997) for firearms used in crimes are:
Also interesting is this: only 1.1% of those in the study had no prior offenses. Looks to me like the gun-rights guys have something when they say “It’s not us. It’s the criminals.”
Which brings up what seems to be a contradiction: If you are a convicted felon, in most all cases you are a “prohibited person” and forbidden by federal law to possess, purchase, or attempt to acquire a firearm. So ANY gun obtained by a felon is from an “illegal source”, as I understand it.
Here’s an interesting website from a National Shooting Sports(disclaimer: this came off on internet search and I have no idea what their politic are but they do like guns for sport at least. And I spent about 5 minutes looking on the Bureau of Justice website and couldn’t find the original source data but no reason why it should not be correct).
"What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases?
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. Less than 8.5 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases."
Which beats out:
retail store 8.3%
pawn shop 3.8%
gun show 0.7% (Wait. What? I thought there was a “gun show loophole” that was in urgent need of being closed.)
ChickenLegs, not to put words in your mouth, but are you telling me then that legal gun owners are a significant part of the problem for illegal firearms? That to really make progress, we really focus on them? What do you say? Something like a national registration, penalties before they sell on guns, maybe a requirement to have insurance if they own and/or sell a gun, people they sell guns to need to pass a background check, etc?
And the follow up question, where do you think that 40% obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street originated? You don’t think those gun show guns never get sold on to a criminal element? That link also said the time for recovery was more than 10 years, meaning that the recycling of firearms do end up on the street in crimes.
Of the minute subset of firearms in the US that are used in crimes, a smaller subset of that group (40%) are obtained from family members. In my opinion, a criminal obtaining a firearm from a family member is no different than a straw purchase. In another thread I suggested that penalties be significantly raised and national marketing campaigns implemented letting people know exactly what WILL happen to them should their guns end up in the hands of those who should not have them, based upon illegal transfers (straw purchase).
No, I read it just fine. I just agree with Martin Hyde and include the 39% Street/illegal as having originated from a legal, “good guy” source at some point in the chain of possession. I can’t think of any other reasonable explanation.
The same applies to the 39% friends and family - most probably legally obtained but irresponsibly owned, the rest from the streets.
Of the remaining 20%, some must have been legitimately acquired but some of the sub-categories in that group sound a little sketchy and may not have had a background check.
I simply believe that if every gun dealer and owner were as careful and responsible as we should be (or claim to be), the “bad guys” would find it very hard to acquire firearms.
Be advised that “friends and family” many times are also criminals who obtained their weapons illegally. Just because sis gave you a gun doesn’t mean she didn’t steal it herself.
I’ve been to gun shows all over the country. I see very few private sellers as opposed to FFL dealers. In my observation the whole gun show squawk is horseshit!
Of all the things that would be easy to give up, this is it, and it would stop the endless shrieking over the “gun show loophole”, which makes it worth doing. Some states already demand it for longarms, and most of them require it for handguns.
I see that currently owned “assault weapons” must be registered. What about currently owed “high” capacity magazines > 10 rounds? Must they also be registered?
To me that would be a nightmare. After years of trading, buying, and selling guns, hell if I know if there isn’t a stray 30 round mag in one of my attic drawers…
I’m opposed to banning private sales without background checks, but I must say I disagree. At least the gun shows I’ve been to, I see many guys with 10 tables, 3 new of each model of Glock, and I stop by and strike up a conversation. When I ask if he’s a dealer, he responds that he’s just a private collector and seller.
At the time I was an FFL, and it pissed me off because even law abiding people would rather just pay cash, not wait and/or not have their name on a federal form. Plus he didn’t collect sales tax, and put me at a 6 percent disadvantage right out of the gate.
At one show the local tax collector stopped and asked for everyone’s business license. About 80 percent didn’t have one and got fined. People thought that I called them, but I swear I didn’t. This was all-too-common at gun shows about 10 years ago. Maybe things have changed.
Really, what’s so horrible about limiting magazines to 10 rounds (rhetorical question directed at these republicans who refuse to let the government do anything)?
Do you really need more than 10 rounds, especially if you are using a semi-automatic gun?
Let me explain a little something to you: all it takes is 3-5 bullets to kill a person.
One bullet (maybe two if the person is really strong and muscular) is plenty enough to get the guy running away.
But after 3 to 4 bullets, you are almost guaranteed death.
And after 5 bullets, you’re done.
“I shot him with 5 bullets and he was still moving.” :rolleyes: So what? Do you expect him/her to die instantly. It does take a few seconds. It’s not like shoot and die here. You shoot, and it takes a few seconds for the person to die. Five bullets is plenty to kill a person.
And really - Obama is letting you have 10 rounds! That’s more than enough especially for semi-automatic guns.
Do you really need more than 10 rounds?
On top of that, usually when a criminal comes to your house, you don’t start shooting right away. You point the gun at him/her, and that will drive most criminals away anyway. The next step is to shoot a few bullets away from him and try to scare him off. If they still don’t stop bothering you, then you shoot.
And honestly, I really don’t think anyone needs a gun. We don’t own guns and we’re perfectly fine. Honestly, it seems like owning guns is a bit paranoid and obsessive. When you buy a gun, it usually does end up getting used, and a lot of time you get unwanted deaths. Now this is just my opinion, but I’m just saying, I’m frightened and sick and tired of you republicans that think you really need a gun, or else your life will be over. :rolleyes:
Got a cite for any of that or is that what you picked up from Call of Duty?
Again, are you teaching that in a self defense course because it sounds like a bunch of made up BS to me. Every class that I have attended or taught teaches to aim for center mass and shoot until the threat is eliminated. Not “shoot a few bullets away from him to scare him off”.
You have never lived in the real world either, have you?
You don’t know what the rip you’re babbling about, yet you want to tell everyone else how things are.
This is how we end up with these ridiculous laws in the first place. We have idiots who don’t know Jack Shit about something writing law for those of us that actual know a thing or two about the subject.
