# What percentage of guns used in crime are stolen?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [January 31, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974 "2013-01-31T23:35:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974/81 "2014-05-19T17:43:22Z")

</div>

> [@slash2k](#):
>
> No, there are some overlaps.

Yeah, I did this comparison a long time ago to address statements like the one philly made. Saying that gun ownership in a state is highly correlated with gun deaths is like saying that car ownership in a state is highly correlated with car deaths.

> [@CannyDan](#):
>
> It seems that it isn’t universal background checks themselves that are so problematic, it is the laws requiring a formal “transfer” in cases that are clearly ridiculous, as **Bone** has illustrated. But for the sake of discussion, I’ll take background checks for private sales off the table. I’ll also take off the table a universal registration system. Not, mind you, because I actually fear confiscation, but because it seems to be an article of faith that we can leave out of this discussion.
> 
> What if, instead, we simply required every transaction to include …
> 
> What say? Does this offer any help for keeping guns out of inappropriate hands without universal required background checks or national registration/licensing of gun owners?

It probably works but its very cumbersome.

A better solution IMO would be simply to have licensing and registration for handguns. Let the “defense against tyranny” types fight the army with rifles and shotguns.

> [@Bone](#):
>
> And…what about home made guns? No FFL required and no serial number to track.

Meh, almost all of those are AR-15 receivers. BTW, I don’t think we should let people mill their own receivers but if its just rifle receivers, then… meh.

> [@PhillyGuy](#):
>
> I don’t recall presenting evidence regarding that specific question, but it’s plausible. Aren’t gunshots more likely to be fatal than the most common alternative means?

Suicide attempts by guns are more lethal than suicide attempts by wristcutting but considering the absolutely average suicide rate in the USA versus other countries, I’m nto sure that the suicide rates in other countries are being suppressed by the lack of guns.

As for the use of guns in murder, I would have thought that that would be captured by relative murder rates.

Here the US murder rate is higher than other developed countries so its hard to tell. it certainly isn’t conclusive enough to make the sort of categorical statements that some gun grabbers make.

> [@](#):
>
> More important than whether I see it is that the peer reviewers at the _American Journal of Public Health_ see it:
> 
> [http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409)
> 
> Full access to the above article requires good university library credentials, or you can read a summary here:
> 
> [PR Social](http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/)

The title is misleading because the linkisn’t between guns and homicides. The link is between guns and gun homcides. I could have told you that gun homicides are going to be more common in places where ther are more guns. But show me that more guns = more homicides generally? Its hard to draw that conclusion by comaring states or even countries.

When you look at total gun deaths, the trend line is even clearer;

[http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png](http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png)

Agreed. This is why even the most responsible gun owners are taking a grave risk unless their wills require destruction of their firearms.  
[/QUOTE]

> [@Bone](#):
>
> What risk is that exactly? That their property will be distributed through their executor in accordance with the laws of their state? This has been the case since forever - is there an actual problem you are alluding to or is this grave risk not yet materialized?

> [@CannyDan](#):
>
> I agree, my suggestion is a convoluted system. I’d prefer national registration of handguns and licensing of gun owners. I really have neither fear nor expectation that confiscation would ever happen nationwide. California? Yeah, but that’s California. There are lots of good reasons to live in CA and lots of good reasons to live elsewhere. 😉 But national confiscation of guns is a non-starter. And licensing would be a simple way to answer the question “Do I know I’m not selling my gun to a criminal or lunatic?” in private sales. Buyer has a license, he’s a legal buyer. No FFL needed.
> 
> But the hysteria against both registration and licensing means neither will be adopted. So the problem of bad guys getting good guns continues. My proposal, while not perfect, would be at least a powerful tool. Sometimes. With limits.
> 
> And before the epithets fly, I’ll note I presently own 4 handguns and 6 long guns, and have had firearms since I was a child. I’m not a gun grabber, just a reasonable person looking for a reasonable improvement to the present situation.

> [@PhillyGuy](#):
>
> We live is a world where people do make threats. And we live in a world where, when a consumer product safety feature is proven effective, and reasonably priced, a chance exists that it will be legally mandated. Your no-threat criteria would have prevented almost any imaginable consumer product safety feature from ever being marketed, sold, and improved based on experience.
> 
> I know of no law that makes all other gun sales illegal. Perhaps you are thinking of this handgun-only law in one state out of fifty, New Jersey:
> 
> [P.L.2002, c.130 (S573 2R SCS)](http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM)
> 
> Even if this allegedly horrid Jersey threat materializes, and you move to New Jersey, you could, if granted a handgun permit, keep your old handguns. And you could still buy non-smart long guns from a New Jersey dealer. I understand this feels like a threat. Many Pennsylvania motorcyclists feel similarly threatened that there could, one day, be a helmet law here. But it still would be immoral for them to block dealers from selling the helmets, the way [gun culturists block sales of safer guns.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-usa-maryland-smartgun-idUSBREA410SD20140502)
> 
> In a previous post, someone on your side pointed out to me that the one and only smart gun model being marketed ([new in the world this year](http://www.armatix.de/iP1-Pistol.779.0.html?&L=1)) is of a caliber unsuitable for police use. I accept that your side is right there. There is no smart-safety-technology police handgun available. But if you read the New Jersey law, you’ll see it does anticipate NJ police being mandated to carry smart guns when the right products come to exist. This will require companies being free to market the products to consumers, gaining experience to make them better, just as automakers developed safety improvements that have saved countless lives.

> [@PhillyGuy](#):
>
> No. Safety features come from normal product innovation that gun culture Luddites can slow but not stop.
> 
> No, what is happening is that US gun hobbyists are using boycotts and threats to keep others from checking out the 1.0 version of this new-for-2014 German product.
> 
> Because of opposition to safety improvement, US gun makers can’t innovate without risking boycotts of their older products. Given that the US is the largest gun market, and commercial disparagement prevents both development and marketing of safer guns in the US, this will indeed slow down innovation. But foreign firms will take up the slack. And when the safer guns are perfected, and come down in price, US gun manufacturing firms will not have the experience or product. From a US competitiveness standpoint, it’s an own goal that will eventually send lots of good jobs overseas.
> 
> Now, Germans deserve good export jobs too! As a result of the American panic over this, they will have them.
> 
> You are repeating a right wing meme going around the internet, and FoxNews, that should garner at least three out of the four possible pinocchios should one of the fact check sites jump on it. Since they don’t seem to have done so yet, I’m going to address it in a bit of detail.
> 
> Under the [New Jersey law](http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM), the NJ attorney general makes a separate determination for the general public, and law enforcement, that suitable safer guns are available for sale, and then lists those guns as the only ones to be sold in the state (along with the exempted long guns, antiques, and guns for sporting uses such as Olympic events). The determination that “the provisions of this section to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to State and local law enforcement” now take effect has the same authority and penalties as the determination for the general public. Yes, it is a separate judgment. That’s because police have specific firearms needs. It has long been the case, in New Jersey, that the list of guns legally sold to police, and the general public list, are different lists. But for each sector, general public and police, the law applies.
> 
> The main difference is that, when it comes to the police list, the Attorney General has to get his or her judgment there confirmed by a seven member commission. Six of members would be appointed by the governor, and the seventh is the Superintendent of the State Police, who also will probably do what the governor wants. So, in effect, two politicians have to approve in the case of the police, only one in the case of the general public. Since the governor appoints the attorney general in NJ, everyone is likely to be on the same page, making the extra review minimal. By contrast, the general public get a more serious second chance in the courts. Gun culture folks would probably sue the attorney general regarding whether the criteria to kick in the law have really taken effect. The police can’t, in practicality, do that. Certainly, the State Police cannot sue. Because of that, it is reasonable that the police requirement gets an extra review.
> 
> So, the law does apply to everyone, even though provisions differ slightly. Three pinocchios.

> [@Bone](#):
>
> Are you actually ignorant of current gun safety features? Guns have progressively gotten more safe over time and will continue to do so without government intervention.  
> No - what is happening is the legislature in NJ is using the power of the state government to infringe on its residents ability to purchase adequate tools for self defense.
> 
> If lawmakers didn’t create laws banning sales of non-smart guns, then consumers would actually be able to decide if the tradeoff in reliability, cost, and functionality is worth the alleged benefit. Instead, NJ has decided to try and ban the overwhelming majority of handgun sales.
> 
> And as a side note, the most popular police handgun in the US is the Austrian made Glock.  
> What are you talking about? It sounds like you are suggesting that it is a right wing meme that laws should apply to everyone equally. And while I think you’re trying to sound cute by parroting the term pinocchios as if you have a level of credibility or are some type of fact checker, the whole idea is laughably pathetic.
> 
> (my bold)  
> I say the law doesn’t apply to police as it does to other residents. You highlight all the ways that it is different (in the same sentence no less) and somehow you think that supports your argument? One law for the police, another for everyone else. It makes no difference that both groups are discussed in the same law - they are treated differently. Pinocchios my ass.  
> The police have no different need for handguns than the general public does when it comes to self defense. What needs do you think police have that make the smart gun not suitable that doesn’t apply to the rest of the residents of NJ?
> 
> * * *
> 
> And no response to this I see:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\
**Post date:** [May 20, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974/82 "2014-05-20T00:42:55Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> Saying that gun ownership in a state is highly correlated with gun deaths is like saying that car ownership in a state is highly correlated with car deaths. . . .
> 
> A better solution IMO would be simply to have licensing and registration for handguns.

Despite apparently having made a mistake or two in quotation in your last post, you were on the right track here. The dangers of gun ownership should be taken as seriously as are those of car ownership. Permit testing, which does exist in most states, and is accepted by many (most?) second amendment supporters, should get more emphasis. One way we will know it is real is if carry permit testing firms that advertise everyone passing are put out of business, and you start getting reasonable pass rates. The reason isn’t because we want people to fail. It’s that we need to show our seriousness about people mastering the rules before giving them a licence that can so easily turn to disaster. Here’s one example of what that looks like:

[In GB around 1.6 million people sit the practical car test per year, with a pass rate of around 43%,[6] the theory test has a pass rate of around 65%.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_driving_test)

The government should spend less money locking people up for gun law violations, and more researching subtle and/or innovative gun features that make them less likely to be used by minors, or for illegitimate purposes such as when the gun is grabbed away from the owner. Given US political realities, this is a more likely kind of gun grabbing to occur than the type of gun grabbing gun enthusiasts get the heebie jeebies over.

When safer cars can be made, they are, but the government does not confiscate the old ones. That’s also a good model for guns.

Can you imagine how many lives have been saved because car enthusiasts didn’t boycott car dealers when seat belts first came out, the way the gun culturists are boycotting any gun dealers who sells a smart gun? But I do remember when people insisted it was better to be thrown from the car than to be locked in by a belt. It took a decade or two to get past that. Just because smart guns aren’t accepted instantly is no reason to give up on the cause.

P.S. As to whether car ownership rates are greatly correlated with car death, it sounds plausible. Why don’t you do the research? Here is a link to start with:  
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/mv1.htm](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/mv1.htm)  
I’m all for people switching from cars to transit, especially rail and/or walking to work. While I’d first emphasize the environmental advantages, avoiding personalized transport is also a lot safer. Note to pro-gun posters: This does not make me a car grabber 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 20, 2014, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974/83 "2014-05-20T03:10:19Z")

</div>

> [@PhillyGuy](#):
>
> Permit testing, which does exist in most states, and is accepted by many (most?) second amendment supporters, should get more emphasis. One way we will know it is real is if carry permit testing firms that advertise everyone passing are put out of business, and you start getting reasonable pass rates. The reason isn’t because we want people to fail. It’s that we need to show our seriousness about people mastering the rules before giving them a licence that can so easily turn to disaster.

No thanks. Anytime you introduce the government between the individual and firearms, the gun control advocates through the force of government will seek to erect barriers to the process.

[Constitutional carry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry) is the only thing that should be supported.

Any response to this? It’s a near hysterical claim without any actual support.

> [@Bone](#):
>
> > [@PhillyGuy](#):
> >
> > This is why even the most responsible gun owners are taking a grave risk unless their wills require destruction of their firearms.
> 
> What risk is that exactly? That their property will be distributed through their executor in accordance with the laws of their state? This has been the case since forever - is there an actual problem you are alluding to or is this grave risk not yet materialized?

And are you sticking by your comparison that a lack of prosecution of a NICS denial is like the attacks of 9/11?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [May 20, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974/84 "2014-05-20T16:04:43Z")

</div>

> [@PhillyGuy](#):
>
> Despite apparently having made a mistake or two in quotation in your last post, you were on the right track here. The dangers of gun ownership should be taken as seriously as are those of car ownership. Permit testing, which does exist in most states, and is accepted by many (most?) second amendment supporters, should get more emphasis. One way we will know it is real is if carry permit testing firms that advertise everyone passing are put out of business, and you start getting reasonable pass rates. The reason isn’t because we want people to fail. It’s that we need to show our seriousness about people mastering the rules before giving them a licence that can so easily turn to disaster.

Well, I happen to support licensing and registration for handguns but I know a lot of fellow gun nuts that don’t. Most of the ones that object to licensign and registration, object to it because they don’t think it will end there. The population of gun control advocates that want to stop at licensing and registration is small (or at least taht is the perception among the gun nuts I know). The perception is that gun grabbers are trying to slowly get to a total gun ban (or something very close to it).

I also don’t think that the failure rate for a gun licensing exam needs to be anywhere near 50%. The rules for operating a gun safely is a fairly short and simple list. A carry license might result in a higher failure rate as you ask legal questions like “can you bring a gun into a bar in Virginia” (yes), “how many drinks can you have in that bar” (zero).

> [@](#):
>
> Given US political realities, this is a more likely kind of gun grabbing to occur than the type of gun grabbing gun enthusiasts get the heebie jeebies over.

Well, its not for a lack of trying on the part of the gun grabbers.

> [@](#):
>
> When safer cars can be made, they are, but the government does not confiscate the old ones. That’s also a good model for guns.

Cars are not a perfect analogy for guns.

Seat belts were not universal until the law required it, air bags were not universal util the law required it.

What gun safety feature would you make universal by law?

> [@](#):
>
> Can you imagine how many lives have been saved because car enthusiasts didn’t boycott car dealers when seat belts first came out, the way the gun culturists are boycotting any gun dealers who sells a smart gun?

Not even close to being analogous.

Seat belts do not affect the reliability of a car.

Seat belts do not quadruple the cost of a car.

Seat belts are not restricted to 4 cylinder compact cars with no trunk space.

Nobody is passing seat belt laws in an effort to get fewer people to buy cars.

A closer analogy would be if a state passed a law saying that once a smart car (one that drives itself) is first sold to the public, then the only cars that can be sold in that state are smart cars. Sure the technology isn’t perfect and you can only get it on a Ford Festiva and it triples the cost of the car but we think it would be safer if everyone drove smart cars.

> [@](#):
>
> Just because smart guns aren’t accepted instantly is no reason to give up on the cause.

noone’s giving up on smart guns, we are just objecting to banning all other guns.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\
**Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974/85 "2014-05-21T00:38:16Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> What gun safety feature would you make universal by law?

Put a surgeon general warning on the box summarizing the public heath research showing that gun ownership makes Americans less safe.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974/86 "2014-05-21T17:05:23Z")

</div>

> [@PhillyGuy](#):
>
> Put a surgeon general warning on the box summarizing the public heath research showing that gun ownership makes Americans less safe.

I don’t think thats a safety feature. Is the evidence that guns reduce safety anywhere near as conclusive as the evidence that smoking is hazardous to your health?

This is something that gun grabbers keep repeating and never prove.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-stolen/648974.md?page=4)