it seems like we are all concerned with the fact that criminals seem well armed i am curious to understand our view of where all these guns come from
My gut feel (I have no data to back this up) is that the overwhelming majority of them are either stolen or acquired through a straw purchase.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/ The survey from which the data was taken can be found here: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf In simple terms, acquire their firearms from co-conspirators; people who are either victims of crime, or who know full well that they are actively committing a crime, and voluntarily agree to assist regardless. That is a deliberate decision to violate the law, and render it useless. That is conspiracy to commit a felony. In simpler terms there is nothing that can be done. You cannot mandate background checks between private transfers, as these are transferees who already know they are violating the law, and simply do not care. And if you cannot make a case against knowingly supplying firearms to known felons, you cannot make a case against transferring a firearm without a background check.
I have never been able to understand this. So what if "criminals" have guns? There are no guns in prison. Are you somehow trying to prevent criminals from obtaining a gun before they commit a criminal act ?? And just because someone committed a crime in the past, does that mean they should never be allowed to own a gun? If they are dangerous and tried to kill an innocent person, why exactly are they out roaming in society? No, "preventing criminals from getting their hands on a gun" just sounds like a feel-good slogan invented by gun control supporters, that appears reasonable at first glance, but on closer inspection does not make so much logical sense.
so given that 80% these guns come from the street or acquaintances do we know where THOSE guns come from or like anders do we simply not care because everybody has a right to own guns
other countries have had success in reducing crime with guns and i thought one of the main drivers of the pro gun people was the need for protection from bad guys with guns i would think you all would actually want fewer bad guys and less well armed bad guys
They lie or steal. Criminal don't care about laws, gun laws or otherwise if they have so little chance of being punished for breaking them.
You seem to be tryin to make a point, just make it already. You where told where criminals get there guns, and then ask so where do those people get there guns. Well if you keep ask it will lead to gun manufacturers. So what are you are you get at guns should be banned because I see no other point in this thread. My answer no.
we live in a country where every American has the constitutional right to own a gun, obviously some will misuse that right, but do we really want to make it a privilege rather then a right? when you make laws making it harder to get guns, it only effects non-criminals as criminals are not gonna follow the laws anyways .
Only because the people of other countries are more willing to abide by the rules. Such does not hold true in the united states. And yet you do not propose even one recommendation that would focus on armed criminals. You propose registration schemes, licensing schemes, prohibitions on the ownership of specific firearms, mandates that firearms be locked up at all times, the maximum amount of ammunition a person can carry in a magazine, and countless others. But you and countless others, have yet to present an argument for how you will punish career criminals who flaunt all firearm laws. Case in point: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...-charges-indianapolis-marion-county/16760997/ You and others continue to propose more and more laws to further regulate firearms ownership. Yet you remain silent, or otherwise outright refuse to answer questions, when it comes to those same laws going unenforced, and career criminals being allowed to remain free in the general populace where they do the most harm.
But they've done little to reduce overall violent crime. A 'gun crime' is no worse than any other violent crime, unless reducing 'guns' is your focus, instead of reducing 'crime'. What you've said above is the same as saying "Well Florida.... Montana has managed to eliminate shark attacks... Why can't you?"
What do you mean by "make it a privilege"? That's a fairly vague term, and the meaning behind it can incite different legal arguments.
1) mainly from confederates or family members who are not banned from buying a firearm at retail 2) on the black market/stolen 3) less than 2% are bought from private sellers at gun shows or flea markets - - - Updated - - - in a sea of stupid posts from anti gun extremists this is the all time winner. You have accused over 80 million honest americans of being criminals.
in general, people prefer not to be a victim of a gun related crime. we have specific laws making it a more severe crime to use a gun in connection with the crime. it seems obtuse to pretend that crime with a gun is no more dangerous than crime without a gun
so you would rather have someone stab you with a K-bar or chop you with a machete vs shoot you with a pistol but you are right. we should make illegal harm of others with firearms severe. rather than doing what most anti gun hysterics want-passing laws that ONLY harass honest citizens. It is ALREADY illegal to possess a firearm if you are a criminal OR INTEND to use the gun for criminal purposes thus "assault weapon bans" machine gun bans, and magazine limits ONLY apply to honest people. None of those things can be owned by criminals at this point
yes it is clear that criminals are mostly not attending gun shows i am looking for more transparency on the supply chain perhaps entrepreneurs are buying at gun shows and selling on the street maybe i dont know i am just asking if we can get a better picture of the process that moves guns into the hands of criminals
Actually many countries that have out right banned guns have Crime levels on par with ours. They just have a much lower murder rate by firearm.
hey turtle, you are a smart guy so you know that it is more likely to accidentally shoot someone during a crime vs stabbing them and by the title of this thread you KNOW that i am trying to focus on criminals and guns and not ordinary citizens and since you do know that, why do you pretend otherwise?
Perhaps instead of attempting to map out the chain of supply, you should instead focus on eliminating demand. More specifically, removing those who are most likely to abuse firearms for criminal purposes, from the equation entirely. If there is no demand for illegally acquired firearms, there is no money in maintaining the supply of illegally acquired firearms.
i am happy to do both but i think that those who supply guns to criminals are also criminals and see no need to exclusively focus on the demand side of the problem
Accidental discharge is different from felony murder. If one is aiming a firearm at another, it means they have made the conscious decision to exercise deadly force. Shooting someone deliberately is no different from cutting someone's throat. Therefore it is intellectually dishonest to discuss accidental discharge as if it is the same thing. Because you have made no attempt to discuss the trend of prosecutors dropping firearm charges against career criminals, even when there is a murder involved, while seeking aggressive prosecution of law abiding firearms owners who commit some technical infraction. Stop discussing laws that could be enacted, and instead discuss how the laws are being employed, correctly or otherwise.
Supply thrives on demand. It is one of the basic lessons in economics. Without demand, there is no point in maintaining supply. If you eliminate one source of supply, more will arise because of the appeal of money. But if demand dries up, and the money with it, there is no appeal to engage in illicit activity. Beyond that simple fact, focusing on supply rather than demand is deliberately ignoring those that regularly use firearms against others for the matter of personal gain. It is a misappropriation of priority.
if you are engaged in a criminal assault its hard to say someone is accidentally shot or stabbed. but it does happen. IN the early 1990s we had a case where two asses decided to hold up a bank in Cincinnati. The shotgun they had was so crappy the sear didn't work and the mope was HOLDING THE HAMMER back on it. Something caused him to let the hammer slip and a very pretty 19 year old teller lost most of her left breast and spent the next 4 years in surgery. that's one of the few cases of someone accidentally being shot during a crime I'd rather get shot in the chest with a pistol (75% chance of surviving) than stabbed with a K-bar or a decent sized steak knife If your goal is to focus on criminals then the only thing you should support is tougher sentences for real criminals as well as supporting honest people carrying firearms.
Murder is murder, no? If you were to ban guns, the 'gun murder' rate will drop, but if the overall murder rate stays the same or increases, then all you have done is taken away people right to defend themselves and nothing else. To pretend that violent crime would decrease if guns were banned is fallacy. In fact, the violent crime rate HAS been dropping even though more and more guns are available every year. This is not to say that more guns mean less crime, but it clearly shows that more guns does NOT mean MORE crime. A simple example: In my state some years ago, there was a cab driver in a college town that was kidnapping young college women and raping them and killing them. They linked 7 rape/murders to this guy before they caught him. Had the FIRST young woman had a gun, and shot this guy in her own defense, she would have SAVED 7 lives, her own included. The statistical result would be that the gun related death rate would have RISEN by one, and the violent crime rate would have FALLEN by 6. And this mirrors, exactly, what HAS been happening in our country for the last decade or more. Coincidence? I don't think so.
