I'll go hunting for the FBI stats...

 

EDIT:  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf - Here .

 

These stats are a bit old.  I am sure there are better numbers someplace.  Look about halfway down the first page for the summary chart, with the detail in the body of the document.  Friends/family basically are tied with illegal purchases.  Given our previous threads, also note the tiny impact of gun shows.

 

But these are not the numbers I was looking for - there are some other stats showing the breakdown of the black market guns, and that's where it gets really bad.  A shockingly high number of black market guns were originally purchased legally.  I'll keep looking.

 

Ever wonder why so few crimes in this country are committed with full-auto weapons?

 

 

Did I say any such thing?

 

 

I certainly don't know - presumably most, I would hope.

 

But...

I completely agree with some level of gun control, but I still can't wrap my head around how 'punishing' (for want of a better word) responsible gun owners with more legislation will prevent criminally obtained and used firearms.

 

As discussed earlier, it is inevitible that laws meant to stop/punish the few guilty will inconvenience the many innocent.

 

The specifics will vary, of course, but there are plenty of possibilities.  A few easy ones - make it a crime to loan your gun to anybody.  PITA?  Yes.  Based solely on my link above, would that make it harder for criminals to get guns?  Yes.  Would it be worth it?  Different question.

 

Many other crime guns are stolen.  Legal gun owners do not always keep their guns locked up safely, and guns are a favorite loot during burglaries.  If we made it a crime to have your gun stolen because it was improperly secured (not sure how to implement that, but go with it), would that make gun owners take better care of their guns?  I would hope, and it would further reduce gun availability to criminals.  Would it be worth it?  Again, policy question, but the effeciveness seems hard to dispute.

 

Look at crime committed before the NFA and after, and look for the use of full-auto weapons, and again after 1986.  Is there any way to deny that the near-prohibition of full-auto weapons in the US has drastically reduced their availability and criminal use?

 

These laws do have effect, or at least they can - gun control laws in this country are laughably porous.  Critics say that gun control doesn't work - and they are right, to a large extent, with regard to US laws, because our laws have loopholes the size of [rude comment].  Think about it - when Mexican drug lords need guns, they come here.  It is easier to get guns here than in a country with a massively corrupt police force and a barely-functioning government. 

 

Would proper gun control inconvenience law-abiding citizens?  Absolutely.  No doubt.  But law-abiding citizens should be honest with themselves and admit that most guns do start out legally.  If we are to reduce gun crime in this country, the best approach is to limit the source, and that means law-abiding citizens.  Whether those controls come voluntarily or involuntarily is a different matter - but to manage the illegal guns we MUST manage the legal guns.

 

 

I absolutely did not.  I was simply making a factual statement about the source of crime guns.  I still cannot understand why people keep trying to color me a gun hater.

 

 

Included in my editorial was stats on the number of automobile burglaries and thefts that occur each year. I talked to a number of members of various Sheriff's Offices around the state, and they said that in Florida a large number of guns used in crimes come from car burglaries and thefts, because you are allowed to leave a gun in your car if you want.

 

While my contribution to this thread is limited to the stats I have on Florida, the point remains. The majority of firearms used in crimes started off with a legal owner at some point.

 

That's not an argument for or against gun control at all. It's not a condemnation of gun owners. It's nothing but numbers. It's just a statistic.

 

That's fine though. Stats are used to present arguments.

 

I was simply saying that I myself, in this thread, had not seen an argument made pro or against anything. Just stats.

 

That's what I have a problem with. I know dozens, if not hundreds of gun owners who have never had their cars broken into, had their guns stolen, or ever had their guns used in a crime.

 

That's fine, same with myself. I suspect we are not the demographic where this is the problem. However, it is indeed happening, and there are statistics to prove it.

 

If people are using logic like this to create legislation, I've got a big problem.

 

I don't.

 

I would rather legislation to help control firearm crime be based off of this, something factual and statisticly based, than something like the AWB or Brady Bill which seemed to be a sort of willy-nilly mish-mash of things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could we make it a crime NOT to store your gun in such a fashion?  Sure - and it would probably reduce gun crime.  My suspicion is that most stolen guns are in fact NOT secured in this fashion, or anything approaching it.

 

I don't have to think very hard to come up with a list of firearm owners who casually leave the house with half a dozen guns laying about - under the bed, in the nightstand, in the entryway closet...  all loaded, of course.  Their stamp collection is locked up - the guns are there for the taking.

 

 

Regarding Peters reference to Mexican drug lords coming to the U.S. to buy weapons, wouldn't that be more likely as a result that we actually have them here? They are easier to obtain because we aren't living in mud huts barely able to feed ourselves. I am guess there aren't a lot of AR15's laying around Pablo the Donkey shoers house because he can't afford them. I am betting there aren't a lot of stolen high end cars either. Not sure of my point here, but just making an observation.

 

Why not pass a law where anyone purchasing any firearm has to show proof of ownership of an approved gun safe? Register all gun safes just as you would a vehicle and when you go to buy a gun, you have to show your license. In order to get this license you have to show proof of purchase of a safe and insurance of some sort. We require people to take a driving test and prove they have insurance to operate a vehicle, why not a gun?

 

 

Then if a gun is stolen, (which is how most "legal" guns get into the hands of criminals) they can be tracked down. This would greatly reduce the number of thefts, as it wouldn't be easy to get rid of, and tracking it would be simple for police to get it back.

 

 

It would also give law enforcement an idea of the threat level in a property they are entering, or a car they are pulling over.

 

The technology already exists, and the cost per unit would be very low.

 

 

 

But along those lines - I seem to recall that one of the big gun changes that Clinton made was to direct the FBI to actually track crime guns to their origins.  I believe that was part of the impetus for the report I linked.  My vague recollection is that police in the past would collect crime guns but not do anything with them.  After Clinton's directive, the FBI worked with police to simply check the serial numbers of crime guns, and look for the origins.  The results were interesting, if not surprising - a very large number of crime guns were purchased from a very small number of dealers.  Some basic police work, and it was quickly discovered that some of the dealers were basically running strawman purchase scams, and they were quickly shut down.  I also believe that several other dealers were offered a choice between turning in their FFL or having their business dealings inspected - many turned in their licenses.

 

As to why Mexicans are coming here for guns - it is exactly because we have guns here.  That's my point.  If the black market guns did not start out legal, then where did they come from?  They would have to be smuggled, and the best place to smuggle something from would be ... Mexico.  But there is no active gun-running through Mexico to feed the US black market, as is demonstrated by the shortage of guns in Mexico. 

 

The easiest source of firearms for North American criminals is the legal US market.  And that is a shame.  Surely we can do better.

 

And Mack et al - I honestly am surprised that you thought I was making a political/policy point in my first point.  I tried hard to keep it literal and factual.   Any appearance to the contrary was strictly unintentional.

 

 

I certainly have no idea about the current feasibility of this idea - I suspect it isn't as easy as it sounds.   But on the retro-fitting point, I don't think you would.  You just phase in with new manufactures.  I suspect the turnover rate in the US gun market is pretty high, and it is presumably highest in crime guns.  So the guns we are most concerned about would get rotated into monitored guns the quickest.

 

But, of course, does anybody think that the NRA and pals would sit still for something like this?  There would be riots by next week.

 

 

 

EDIT - oh, and tallen:  how are those rounds against werewolves?

 

I was aware that there was some number fudging going on (when was there ever a gun number that WASN'T fudged?), but not the exact extent.

 

I wonder if there is a good source of information to determine the actual flow of weapons between Mexico and US...

 

 

Ceesman762 wrote: I'm curious about the Mexican Army desertion rate and how many of those deserters are taking their weapons with them.  Some of the fire power I have looked at on line that has been captured by the Mexican police can not be had or less likely to be able to owned by the private US citizen.  M203 grenade launchers and 40mm grenades to go with it?  AT4 and LAAW rockets?  Another question I have is how many Mexican cops are returning what they have captured back to the cartels for a small profit?  I'm thinking out loud and I'm curious.

 

Good point.  I suspect those numbers would be even harder to come by, although my gut also tells me "lots."  Ugh.

 

 

oldpbnoob wrote: That is most definitely my concern in life. Make sure the Mexicans have a good image and jobs. I hope my tax dollars are going to pay for this.

 

You should be concerned.  A poor and unstable Mexico is a major drain on the US economy.  If we could fix Mexico, it would be worth a rather significant investment.

 

 

Like I said - a poor and disorganized Mexico is a drain on our economy.  If Mexico weren't such a craphole, immigration wouldn't such a big issue here.  Just being able to cut back on ICE bureaucracy would be a huge savings.

 

If Mexico weren't such a craphole, crime there wouldn't be so bad, and we could save money and lives in the border cities - on our side of the border.

 

If Mexico weren't such a craphole they would have a more productive economy, which would benefit the whole world - but most of all us, since we live right next door.

 

If Mexico weren't such a craphole, we could sell our products there and actually make money off Mexico.

 

If Mexico weren't such a craphole, it would slow the flow of illegal drugs to the US.

 

And so forth.  Poverty is the biggest drain on any economy.  Sitting right next to a very poor country like Mexico is seriously cramping our style.  It would be a huge benefit for us if they were a strong wealthy economy.

 

The technology does exist and has for years (RFID). It would just need to be changed slightly to fit to the desired use. Longer life, and the ability to scan from a distance. Cost is less than a penny each... And could easily be manufactured inside the gun housing, only way to get it out, is to break the housing and render the frame of the gun useless.

 

Here is some info.

 

http://www.nocards.org/AutoID/overview.shtml - http://www.nocards.org/AutoID/overview.shtml

 

Old guns would be immune, so they would increase in value... Good for collectors. Bad for criminals.

 

 

if you knew where it was...

 

They can make them super tiny, and then manufacturers would just move them around in manufacturing...

 

I do packaging work, and see these things all the time. The aren't "scary" once you understand how they work, and they are a great theft deterrant. Especially if the police built up a system to scan for them.

 

Imagine if you tv had one... It gets stolen, you activate it and the police go get it... Criminal busted. Fence scared to take it... And the "temptation" of easy money eliminated...

 

 

 

Stopping countries from sucking is indeed hard.  I don't know if more money would do the trick - my point being that if we COULD make Mexico better with a few dollars, it would be an excellent investment.  Most of human ills flow from poverty - including corruption.

 

I have no particular moral qualms about overthrowing governments either, but that seems to backfire more often than not.

 

Both police work and welfare should be approached from an investment standpoint, both domestically and internationally.  When done properly, both can be excellent investments.  When done poorly, they are both very costly.

 

Right now Mexico is a problem, and it is a problem for US, not just for Mexicans.  Much like "bailing out" homeowners and banks, we should judge the policy for its results, not based our distaste for some undeserving beneficiaries.

 

 

True.  I will stop now.

 

 

Back on point - if we are serious about stopping guns from getting in the hands of criminals while still allowing citizens to own guns, then I think we do need to slow/stop the flow of guns from the legal market to the illegal market.  This might be approached from a variety of angles, including Mass-style penalties for losing your gun and improved tracking technology.

 

For the gun-loss penalties to be effective, however, I think they would have to be rather severe.  I somehow don't think a $1,000 fine makes that much difference to many people.  To effect a cultural shift in how guns are stored and kept, we may have to go all medieval.  Imprisonment, loss of gun rights, etc.  Public awareness campaigns could be a huge help, particularly if the gun lobby participated.  Heck, I think gun lobby participation would be necessary. 

 

Tracking technology has certainly shown impressive results in the past.  Using only serial numbers, we have already learned that maybe half of crime guns start their lives with just a very few dealers - roughly 1-2% of total dealers.  This type of information is gold, and allows us to target resources correctly.  RFID installed in all guns would take that information-gathering to another whole level.  But again I fear a rather drastic backlash from the gun lobby at such an idea - recall the fuss over something as simple as a federal firearms ownership license.  And, frankly, RFID-implanted guns freak me out a bit too.  I understand the crime-fighting value, but gun policy is all about balancing, and this seems to me to teeter too far.

 

 

Why don't we put chips in our kids, so if they get kidnapped we/police can find them. So after 70 or so years everyone can be tracked by parents/police/goverment.....

 

What if the chip was used for your ID, no more drivers licenses or John Does.....

 

What if the chip was used for money transfering, so there was no need for cash/checks/debit/ or credit.... cards.

 

Edit: Note sarcasm

 

Touche'