Skip to main content

View Diary: More data on gun control policies even NRA members support (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  a wealth of info contained within... (14+ / 0-)

    ...this report.

    And it's not just this report...I'd like to show you a chain.

    The professionals involved in this study wrote a short article for the New England Journal of Medicine.

    That article is also listed on the NIH's National Library of Medicine website. On that NIH page, the author's names are hotlinked to lists of their other publications.

    In those lists of other research are a wealth of info, just one example being...

    From the JD-MPH involved in this study:

    Legal status and source of offenders' firearms in states with the least stringent criteria for gun ownership.

    Abstract
    Gun possession by high-risk individuals presents a serious threat to public safety. U.S. federal law establishes minimum criteria for legal purchase and possession of firearms; many states have laws disqualifying additional categories for illegal possession.

    METHODS:
    We used data from a national survey of state prison inmates to calculate: 1) the proportion of offenders, incarcerated for crimes committed with firearms in 13 states with the least restrictive firearm purchase and possession laws, who would have been prohibited if their states had stricter gun laws; and 2) the source of gun acquisition for offenders who were and were not legally permitted to purchase and possess firearms.

    RESULTS:
    Nearly three of ten gun offenders (73 of 253 or 28.9%) were legal gun possessors but would have been prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms when committing their most recent offense if their states had stricter prohibitions. Offenders who were already prohibited under current law acquired their gun from a licensed dealer, where a background check is required, five times less often than offenders who were not prohibited (3.9% vs. 19.9%; χ(2)=13.31; p≤0.001). Nearly all (96.1%) offenders who were legally prohibited, acquired their gun from a supplier not required to conduct a background check.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Stricter gun ownership laws would have made firearm possession illegal for many state prison inmates who used a gun to commit a crime. Requiring all gun sales to be subject to a background check would make it more difficult for these offenders to obtain guns.

    Good work and Cheers, ty...
    •  Interesting links you've got there (11+ / 0-)

      Thanks for digging this up.

      I know what they'll say, though, that criminals will just seek out the black market...but I don't lock my door and my gate because for guaranteed safety, it's to deter some or most.

      The NRA no doubt refuses to contemplate how many people would be deterred from acquiring a gun through background checking. Like the problem of gun suicide, they like to pretend that it's unstoppable.

      “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

      by tytalus on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 11:28:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  quote: 96% of convicted offenders... (11+ / 0-)
        Nearly all (96.1%) offenders who were legally prohibited, acquired their gun from a supplier not required to conduct a background check.
        'Tween these researchers' lists of publications, there's a ton of these take-homes, on a wide variety of the wrinkles within the issues. This is just one...

        Cheers.

      •  Re: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes, annecros, happy camper

        Expanded background checks will have no measurable impact on transfers to the criminal market.  Still, they're worth doing if they can be done in a way that preserves privacy.  The NRA will give this to you eventually, but they'll be the ones writing how the system works (probably by simply letting citizens download and some version of the software retailers use with additional features to ensure buyer consent to the search).

        Since the NRA's calling for a database of the mentally ill, they're obviously saying they think that gun suicides are preventable.

        •  Re: suicide - I disagree (7+ / 0-)

          Listening to what they say, I think it's fairly obvious that their emphasis on mental illness has more to do with mass shootings than suicide. For example, here's Wayne LaPierre at his disastrous press conference in December.

          How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave, while provoking others to try to make their mark.

          A dozen more killers, a hundred more? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

          The black market is what it is. Without some credible evidence, I do not believe in the inevitability of everyone who wants a gun getting one regardless of the difficulty.

          “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

          by tytalus on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 01:49:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The NRA position on suicides is very clear - they (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joy of Fishes, tytalus

            don't count!  Just like any other death that they don't like - discount it and DE-humanize the victims!

            The black-market will always be there for sure, but with the gun show loophole (and the very weak NICS checks, as opposed to full criminal background checks as required in some states) the illegal gun availability is kept high by "laundering" legal guns into illegal ones - and this is perfectly legal!  Explain this to anyone that doesn't live in the US and they just cannot comprehend how it is perfectly legal to keep selling legal guns to people that do not have a right to own them - as is done by unscrupulous "private" dealers and relatives of criminals all the time.

            Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

            by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 06:33:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  "supplier not required to conduct a background..." (7+ / 0-)

          ...

          Nearly all (96.1%) offenders who were legally prohibited, acquired their gun from a supplier not required to conduct a background check.
          In many states and localities, a "supplier not required to conduct a background check" is by definition a broad group of suppliers.

          Your "no measurable impact" statement is based on what?

          Cheers.

          •  I live in Tucson (6+ / 0-)

            AKA gun show central...I think there would be a very measurable impact, if nothing else in the quantity of weapons put in the trunks of cars with Mexican License plates.

            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

            by Empty Vessel on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 03:05:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            Is a trafficker in stolen weapons "a supplier not required to conduct a background check?"  That is, a supplier who is not a licensed retailer or manufacturer? In other words, suppliers who may or may not be legally entitled to possess, let alone market, firearms under any circumstances.

            This is the study you quote:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

            •  private & gunshow sellers are traffickers... (3+ / 0-)

              ...by the most basic definition.

              trafficker  
              seller: someone who promotes or exchanges goods or services for money.
              How do most buyers and sellers of firearms in private or gunshow sales determine whether a weapon is stolen?

              Cheers.

              •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                So are retailers and manufacturers.  And apparently so are thieves who sell firearms out of the back of their trunks.  That's my point.  Your 96.1 percent figure draw from the huge well of stolen firearms.

                •  perhaps you missed this part of the thread... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tytalus, DefendOurConstitution

                  ...where I pointed out that...

                  In many states and localities, a "supplier not required to conduct a background check" is by definition a broad group of suppliers.
                  While retailers and manufacturers may be considered traffickers, retailers may be required to conduct  background checks, and manufacturers may be required to record and/or verify dealers' licenses.

                  That 96.1 percent figure also covers all private sales and gunshow sales - where ever a background check is not required.

                  So, literally, it seems that that's the company that private sellers and gunshow sellers are keeping - they're right in there in the marketplace with thieves and sellers of stolen guns.

                  So, again, how do private and gunshow buyers and sellers know that they're not buying or possessing a stolen gun?

                  And again, your "no measurable impact" statement is based on what?

                  Cheers.

                  •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper

                    So you sell some things around the house, that's the same thing as a thief selling his haul?

                    I base my "no measurable impact" on the scale of of the stolen weapons market, which amounts to (down to, thankfully) 120,000 units a year. That's not to say expanding background checks won't accomplish anything; if nothing else and if properly accounting for privacy concerns, it will put the whole confiscation issue to bed.

                    •  ok, "no measurable impact" doesn't mean... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tytalus, DefendOurConstitution

                      ..."no measurable impact".

                      Folks who are buying and selling stolen guns - well, they are selling stolen guns, whether it's around their house or otherwise.

                      So, again, how do private and gunshow buyers and sellers know that they're not buying, selling, or possessing a stolen gun?

                      Cheers.

                      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                        No measurable impact means no measurable impact, as in other sources of firearms are negligible compared to the stolen gun market.

                        Back to your question.  It's really difficult to say.  We are talking about a market of 270 million firearms ranging in age from several decades to a few weeks old.  18 percent of the transactions that touch this arsenal will occur between people who are not licensed dealers or family members.  At least 1.4 million stolen firearms circulated between 2005-2010, how many times they passed from lawful owner to prohibited person is unknowable.

                        •  "stolen weapons...down to...120,000 units a year" (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          tytalus, DefendOurConstitution

                          ...that's your quote.

                          ...other sources of firearms are negligible compared to the stolen gun market.
                          That's your quote, too.
                          ...a market of 270 million firearms...
                          That's your quote, too.
                          At least 1.4 million stolen firearms circulated between 2005-2010
                          That's your quote, too.

                          Please reconcile the apparent dissonance in your numbers and statements.

                          how many times they passed from lawful owner to prohibited person is unknowable.
                          Also your quote. Tho' currently correct.

                          Also unknowable - how many time stolen guns passed to "lawful" owners. And how many private and gunshows sales were of stolen weapons. And how many private and gunshow sales were stolen weapons sold to unlawful owners.

                          Tho' it seems reasonable that "alot" would apply.

                          Cheers.

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            We can count thefts.  We cannot count the number of times a firearm, once stolen, changes hands, or how many return (if at all) to the legal market.  The numbers reconcile themselves.

                          •  nah, your numbers don't jibe with your statements (3+ / 0-)

                            ...you might think about reviewing them and revising to clarify what you're trying to advocate.

                            We could count reported thefts. However, reported thefts is what proportion of total thefts? total thefts include the unreported ones.

                            cannot count the number of times a firearm, once stolen, changes hands, or how many return (if at all) to the legal market
                            Please describe how a stolen gun "returns to the legal market". It's stolen, no matter how many times "otherwise law-abiding gun owners" transfer it. And anyone buying it would no longer be a "law-abiding gun owner",  by virtue of possessing a stolen gun.

                            If there's a legal mechanism, how many stolen guns "return to the legal market" annually through this mechanism?

                            I note that you're kinda shy about posting links to the info you're advocating. Don't be shy, share...

                            Cheers.

                          •  Numbers do not need to jibe, our faith tells us (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            that more guns are better and that guns don't kill.  There is no way our faith can be wrong!  It was handed down by the high priests at the NRA!

                            /snark, but not far from the argument that the gun fetishist you are arguing with is making.

                            Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

                            by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Feb 24, 2013 at 06:36:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            Most recent firearm theft figures from BJS review of NCVS data from 2005-2010:

                            http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/...

                            Report thefts form a lower bound.

                            The distribution of source upper bounds stems from a Mayors Against Illegal Guns study of BJS victimization and offender surveys.

                            Rough upper bounds for retail purchases comes from a 2001 report on inmate survey data from 1997.  

                            http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/...

                            For recidivists, who by definition include (but are not limited to) persons prohibited from purchasing a firearm, 11.4 percent reported retail purchase for their last firearm.  Assuming that the pattern holds (a bad assumption, since retail purchase by recidivists dropped by 32 percent between 1991 and 1997), we can estimate the range to be anywhere from 30,000 (if all firearms not purchased immediately at retail are stolen) to 190,000 (if all firearms not stolen by recidivist were legally purchased).  

                            Firearms can return to the legal market Someone who can lawfully purchase a firearm unknowingly does so from a private seller who is not lawfully allowed to possess said firearm.  The extent of this trade is unknown from data on hand, but its a flow that would be severely curtailed by expanded background checks.

                          •  a demonstration that links don't save a poorly... (3+ / 0-)

                            ...made and confused viewpoint, that's what you've provided us here.

                            You claim that firearm thefts are down to around 120,000 per year, that "other sources of firearms are negligible compared to the stolen gun market", and that the whole  market is 270 million firearms...

                            So...I'm left wondering if you understand what the word "negligible" actually means.

                            Afterall, based on your numbers, stolen guns represent less than 1% of the market. Your numbers work out to show that stolen guns are the negligible part of that equation.

                            Your numbers work out to show that "other sources of firearms" - retail, private, and gunshow sales - make up 99.6% of the gun market.

                            And you maintain that 99.6% of the gun market is negligible compared to .4%.

                            If those numbers are correct, then stolen guns are a miniscule part of the market.

                            The extent of this trade is unknown from data on hand, but its a flow that would be severely curtailed by expanded background checks.
                            This is from your last comment. Perhaps you can explain how that jibes with "no measurable impact" you've repeated a couple times in your comments above.

                            Cheers.

                          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                            We're discussing flow of firearms into the criminal secondary market, so I'm not sure what you're trying to show by comparing stolen guns to the firearms market as a whole.

                          •  those are your numbers, your advocacy... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            ...and you're not sure about what they show, or why you brought them into the conversation?

                            Cheers.

                      •  Many of them "launder" legal guns into illegal (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        luckydog

                        ones that are now available to criminals.  This is a key part of the loophole for the NRA, they need a way to keep replenishing the illegal gun supply.

                        Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

                        by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 07:45:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, okay. Uh-huh. Sure. So why bother? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, DefendOurConstitution
          Expanded background checks will have no measurable impact on transfers to the criminal market.

          Sheesh.

          •  But they will mean sure & complete confication! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WakeUpNeo

            OMG, you guys are gunning for my gunzzzzz!

            /snark

            Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

            by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 07:43:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper

              The current NICS system guards against that risk, and current proposals only seek to extend it to the private market.  Additional privacy protections can be put in place to further assure gun owners.  And if we're real smart about it, the feds will release the NICS software client for public download so that citizens need not involve a licensed dealer.  

          •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happy camper

            Because expanded background checks are worth it for other reasons.  You can't go wrong giving citizens the tools with which to cleanly and unambiguously separate their business from the illegal secondary market, and there's very little burden to the effort asked.  That's the practical consideration.  Politically, ending the debate on this so-called loophole would be a blessing all by itself.

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros
      Nearly all (96.1%) offenders who were legally prohibited, acquired their gun from a supplier not required to conduct a background check.
      that's a curious way of saying "got it from any source other than a licensed dealer, including stealing from someone's house or buying from the local crack dealer."

      I mean, the way they phrased it makes it sound like universal background checks would matter.  But if they're stealing them themselves, or buying from the local fence, or the local drug dealer, the background check requirement is irrelevant.

      Nearly all (96.1%) offenders who were legally prohibited, acquired their gun from a supplier not required to conduct a background check.
      Yeah, I'm sure these people don't have an axe to grind.

      the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

      by happymisanthropy on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 04:24:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (147)
  • Community (78)
  • Baltimore (77)
  • Freddie Gray (57)
  • Bernie Sanders (54)
  • Civil Rights (45)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (34)
  • Media (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (25)
  • Education (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site