Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

        •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site