Only One in Ten Criminals Get Their Guns Via Valid Retail
Handguns for sale at Marrimack, new Hampshire, gun store. Photo by Dominick Reuter, Agence France-Presse, Getty Images.
As many here have argued, stricter gun laws won’t stop criminals from committing crimes with guns. You guys have also argued that it’d be the law abiding citizen that ends up having a harder time… Thus effectively be “more disarmed” relative to the criminals.
A report came out substantiating your arguments. From The Mercury News:
According to the January special report by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, about one in 10 state and federal prisoners convicted of crimes involving a firearm said they got the weapon through a retail source like a sporting goods store, pawn shop or gun show.
Both sides are pointing to this report, done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice), to back their arguments. Those that argue for more gun control insist that tougher gun laws would force criminals to risk their safety purchasing their weapons through more dangerous venues.
Judging by the daily feel good stories that we get here, that appears to be a risk that many take.
Going along the “if it even saves one life” theme, they’re essentially arguing that the “one out of ten” is “proof” that more regulation is needed.
They’re also arguing that differences in state laws allow criminals to cross state lines to purchase firearm related items that they normally wouldn’t be able to purchase in the original state.
Hint, hint, nod, nod, federal regulations needed…
Out of those that got their guns from an authorized retail source, only one percent got theirs from a gun show. That’s 1 percent of the 10.1 percent who got their gun from a retailer.
Didn’t someone argue that it was too easy to purchase a gun at a gun show?
You can read more here:
If you go straight to the PDF, they put that at 2%. Less than 1, out of 50, of the above prisoners obtained the firearm from a retail source.
You can download the PDF from this site:
Category: Guns
My surprised look, this isn’t it.
It would be very interesting to know what part of the 10% had no record at the time of the purchase.
If a person has no record, no LE files, then they can pass a background check and buy the firearm.
It would also be interesting to find how many had juvenile convictions expunged at 18 or 21 and passed background to purchase later.
It seems obvious to me that such context may be important to understanding the 10%……
I wonder how many of that 10% passed a back ground check because the disqualifying data had not been entered into NICS?
another good question.
In the end, I have more questions than the report can answer….
Yep.
The whole point of “universal background checks” it to point out that this scheme fails utterly without 1) firearm registration and 2) banning private sales, thus the need to pass laws ejecting both also.
Of course -those- will of course “unexpectedly” fail to stop violent crimes, so bans and confiscations must, of course, follow.
And when -that- “unexpectedly” fails, near-total prohibition, except for the connected and wealthy, inevitably follow.
The victim disarmament deny it, but somehow fail to oppose any of it, calling any such things “reasonable”.
No socialist paradise is possible without the means to impose it ” voluntarily”.
Nope. No further.
Combine that with the 2018 data for police shootings of unarmed blacks and you get a whole lot of data to support what anyone with common sense can see.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/police-shootings-in-black-america-the-2018-data-is-in_2757253.html
Baltimore demands a recount.
Several recent shootings by police by “unarmed” black men were situations where the person shot refused to drop the item he was holding that looked like a gun. In one case the “victim” was holding a replica gun.
Never have I ever been in a retail establishment and seen a potential firearm purchaser turned down for having a criminal record.
I’m going to wager that’s because no person with a criminal record will attempt to purchase a fireman in a retail establishment.
Prolly a good thing the tornado blew away what I had in the way of firearms. Now I don’t have to worry about some criminal breaking in, stealing them, and going on a crime spree. Not that a criminal would do something like that.
It happens, you are just not there to see it. Often it occurs because the purchaser has forgotten about that time years ago when his then girlfriend obtained a claimed domestic violence restraining order against him. Or, it might be because he didn’t know that time he was involuntarily in a mental facility for several days disqualified him from purchasing. Those with felony convictions usually know they will be denied and don’t try to buy guns from licensed dealers. What I find interesting is that the DOJ refuses to prosecute the people that do violate federal law by attempting to purchase firearms and falsely fill out the form 4478, but love to prosecute anyone connected to Trump for lying to a federal agent. But then there are millions of illegals who commit tax fraud and obtain about five (5) billion dollars in tax refunds for their children, nieces and nephews claimed as dependent children who don’t even reside in the U.S., every year, but the IRS and the DoJ turn a blind eye to that.
Copy and Roger all that rgr769. Had my /s/ light on the dimmer. During my final divorce I purchased a replacement for one that I didn’t have custody of. Didn’t even think about the trumped up charges and the restraining order. Showed my permit to the clerk and bought the pistol. Easy peasy. Just a month or so later my permit was due to expire, submitted paperwork for the renewal and got a letter from the County wanting to know the disposition of the case. All of the charges had been dropped but the expunging of the record hadn’t happened. I had to take a copy of the court order/divorce decree so they would process the app. I would presume that the record is expunged by now; I’ve renewed the cc permit twice since then.
Nothing really pisses me off worse than seeing all the signs along the road at tax time showing how much per child “refund” they got coming. This is after seeing 40%+ of my earned income going to taxes.
With HIPAA laws as they are now, would being in a mental health facility even show up on NICS?
That seems to be a more common issue, psychological problems aren’t being identified in NICS because of HIPAA and so people with said conditions are free to purchase without concern.
According to the January special report by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, about one in 10 state and federal prisoners convicted of crimes involving a firearm said they got the weapon through a retail source like a sporting goods store, pawn shop or gun show.
And how much money was spent funding this report?
“…one in ten prisoners convicted of crimes involving a firearm…” etc., etc., etc.
Yeah, I believe that. I sure do. Convicts are widely known for being blatant truthtellers, aren’t they?
JBPritzker has signed the federal oversight gunshop law into effect: https://thesouthern.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-illinois-gov-pritzker-signs-oft-rejected-gun-dealer-licensing/article_fbb83e7e-1a84-11e9-a617-8fc81138ddfe.html
“We can prevent someone from buying a gun for someone else who is not legally allowed to own a gun,” said Pritzker, standing next to Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, whose force confiscated 10,000 illegal guns last year. “Many of the incidents of gun violence that occur in our city and all across our state occur with illegal guns.”
That should really stop gun purchases by Bad Guys, shouldn’t it? The fact that the federal government already licenses gun dealers must have escaped him, as well as the fact that there is more to the state of Illinois than Chicago.
also don’t forget, the Chitcago gangs just get their guns from Indiana anyway.
They also get them from boxcars parked overnight in South Side railyards. That has been going on, per the Tribune, for many, many years.
What he really meant to say was:
“We can prevent EVERYONE from buying a gun,” said Pritzker,
Differences in state laws? If you don’t have a driver’s license in that state (unless you’re military) you can’t buy a gun there. Period.
Correctamundo. It is already against federal law to deliver a firearm to a purchaser from an FFL dealer to a resident of another state. If I reside in Utah, I cannot purchase a firearm from a gun shop in another state without having it shipped to an FFL dealer in my state, who then has to run the back ground check on me before he can give me the gun.
I might add for those here who aren’t gun-nutz, that is how firearms are sold and delivered via internet sales. FFL dealer in state A where the seller is located ships the gun to FFL dealer in state B where the buyer is located. Then the FFL in B conducts the back ground check and does all the paperwork. The same thing happens for gun show sales where the purchaser is not a resident of the state where the gun show occurs.
The purported gun show loophole is the same one for private party sales in most states. A person can take his personal firearm to a gun show, hang a sign on it saying it is for sale for $XXX and hope a show attendee buys it. Of course in the several states that require all private sales to go through dealers with back ground checks, the criminals don’t follow those laws, because –wait for it–they are criminals and plan to use their guns to commit crimes.
Not in Colorado anymore, the freaking dims made sure of that.. they actually enforce that one, unlike the BS about standard capacity magazines..
In California I only needed a state issued ID to buy a gun there, not a full driver’s license. But I still needed a California ID, even with my military ID.
I can almost guarantee that those criminals who got their guns through ‘legitimate’ sources – gun shops, pawn shops, etc – actually got them from a corrupt dealer, and there are a few out there. Others got them simply because the system doesn’t work. It’s no secret that federal agencies don’t update NICS in a timely manner. For states it’s voluntary. Many states have their own database. Others simply don’t send the proper information to NICS, especially mental health records. (Notice I didn’t include gun shows as a legitimate source because private sales without a background check are legal in most states, including those at gun shows.)
Rather than fix the system, the left would rather pile on more useless regulations. California is a prime example. That state is the anti-gun lefts wet dream. It has almost every draconian restriction the left has ever wanted. California has ‘universal’ background checks for guns and ammunition, waiting periods for guns and ammunition, a ‘red flag’ law, microstamping, and even goes so far banning guns by make and model (the list of banned handguns alone is 56 pages long), that’s to name just a few. Despite all of that and more, the rate of “gun crime” increased 18% for the years 2014-2016, 14 points higher than the national average for the same years. So what is it that Dems want to do? Take California regulations national. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and hoping for a different result, leftist Democrats should be in straight jackets. Instead, we have the insane running the asylum.
?
The California laws are working exactly as intended. They are step by step reducing the Second Amendment to a historical footnote.
The failure to deter crooks is a feature, not a bug. The lack of progress thus “justifies” the next crackdown.
The same process is shown in economic matters. More government control fails to end “problems” and “injustice”, thus ever more control is needed.
It is all about controlling you, not the yahoos.
How about stricter penalties for committing a crime with a firearm….sort of as a deterrent? Say like mandatory minimum of 10 or 15 years for committing a felony while possessing a firearm? Not a fix for all situations obviously but I think that would be a concession that both sides of the argument could agree on. The anti gun crowd gets more gun laws and the 2A crowd isn’t affected because they are law abiding citizens…if you aren’t using your wepapon to commit a crime then you are unaffected by the law. Just a thought.
I doubt you’d find any true supported of the 2nd Amendment that would argue with that approach Darren, though the anti crowd would, because it fails to advance their true (not stated) agenda, which is complete disarmament of those who would oppose their socialist utopia..
Those enhanced charges are the -first- thing on the table for plea deals.
Those mandatory sentence cases get fought hard, thus clutter up the court system. Much nicer for the system if Thug pleas to simple mayhem and a suspended sentence. Prosecutor gets a win, courts don’t have to hold court. Jails don’t have to hold Thug.
What? You don’t see yourself or protecting folks there? Who said it was about you? The State will ban Arms to protect you, don’t worry.
And violators of -those- laws will get the works. Because -you- threaten them, not Thug.
Think that is over the top? Provide a better explanation for the revolving door for career hoodlums, and the hammer drop on first time gun mal-possession or other gun technical fouls by otherwise upstanding folks.
11 B Mailclerk has hit the nail on the head.
The goal of “common sense” gun laws is to disarm the citizens.
Criminals do not threaten the political class with their armed guards and wallled communities.
Only armed citizens are in the way of the communist takeover
D-rats know that the majority of voters who own guns and are skilled with their lawful use don’t vote D-rat. Thus, they don’t care if they further alienate us.
It has never been about control of guns; it has always been about controlling PEOPLE.