Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds

[Howzit]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the past two decades, and the number of murders committed with a firearm is down too, though guns are still by far the leading type of crime weapon, according to a new report from the Justice Department.

As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.

Murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report. Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Around 70 percent of murders were committed with a firearm, and of those, the vast majority involved a handgun -- fluctuating between 70-80 percent.

Translation: We need to ban more guns on general principle, even if it has no beneficial effect...

[bowens43]

1. "even if it has no beneficial effect..."

30,000 dead every year in the US and you say banning guns and ammo would have no beneficial affect?????

what a ridiculous thing to say

[Kolesar]

3. There are times when only a simplistic message worthy of Sarah Palin will do

Don'tcha know?

[Howzit]

5. Most of the 30,000 deaths are suicides

Gun owners killing themselves would seem to be reducing the number of gun owners pretty effectively.

As for the one's killing others with their guns, they are not going to think much of your gun bans, just like they don't think much of the laws banning drugs.


[img][/img]

[Common Sense Party]

19. Are you in favor of BANNING all guns and all ammo?

[gejohnston]

2. Here is the report

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

[jmg257]

4. Any particular guns you have in mind?

40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source.

Maybe universal checks on all tranfers and registration would be a better compromise?

[rrneck]

8. Friends and family will probably know someone's history

and maybe even share it. A compulsory background check won't be telling them anything they don't already know. And it might be difficult to get a thief to submit to a background check when he steals your gun.

[jmg257]

10. A violation of a background check law would allow people to be charged.

That way those who would sell/give/lend to criminals even though they 'know better' - or SHOULD know better -could be held responsible when that contraband gun shows up. Those receiving the gun illegally could also be charged for another crime.

No doubt it might be difficult, but having that gun registered to me would ensure that it was really stolen when I report it missing, and hadn't in actuality been transferred intentionally though illegally. Helps make sure I am indeed a lawful gun owner and not trafficking in guns illegally (via 'boating accidents'), & helps make me take a bit more responsiblity for what happens to my guns. Also gives the thief a couple other things to be charged with.

Combined the two should help cut the flow of illegal guns criminals use, which according to the report may be as high as 77% of the problem.

[rrneck]

11. It wouldn't do a thing.

If both transferees (friends) are criminals the crime gun will never be found. In fact, it's not uncommon to have a "community gun" where any number of anonymous people can access it.

If the transfer is between family with a checkered past: see above.

If the transfer is between law abiding family and a member of the family with a checkered past, a mandatory background check will put the family in the position of having to choose between supporting the law or the family member. Don't forget, even bad guys have to defend themselves from other bad guys. Blood is thicker than water. The gun will be reported stolen and that will be the end of it. You can't prove the transfer was made with consent without evidence.

In the end you're still not regulating guns, but relationships. And that never ends well socially or politically.

ETA

If you want to connect a gun to a crime the criminal will have to lose it where you can find it, leave it at the scene, or get caught with it. When you confront the owner of the gun and try to charge them with an illegal transfer all they have to do is say, "that no good sonofabitch stole it". End of story.

[jmg257]

13. Hmmm...and where did that community crime gun come from originally?

Nice to think sooner or later some LE may come across it, and be able to deal with it in a beneficial manner.

The family will be put into a position where they can choose to be lawful or not. That is totally up to them of course - but don't take the risk unless you are prepared to pay the penalties - as long as there are penalties. Fuck up and give your brother the felon a gun which he gets caught using? Great - then you get the chance to go to jail with him.

Which is why registration AND UBC are important together...registration will confirm who owned what originally.

Don't really give a shit about relationships here...if you want to deal with guns, then you either you are law-abiding or not. If you choose not to be, then be prepared to pay the price. Sure plenty of people will get away with violating the laws - people always do. But not everyone will, and there is always a deterence, especially when the risks are severe enough.

The goal is to limit the flow of illegal guns by cutting down on trafficking, being able to identify illegal guns to get them out of circulation (i.e. any unregistered to those found in possession), and better penalize those who break the laws. Doesn't take much more then a signed statement to instigate charges. Better be damned sure of who you choose to deal with, and how. Might want to think about who you transfer YOUR gun to illegally, and what they might be doing with it.

[Bazinga]

15. What does registration really add?

I would reword the goal of UBCs/registration a little differently. I would say that it is to identify people who are barred from owning guns and prevent them from obtaining weapons. Is that fair?

I agree that UBCs are a fantastic way to begin that process, assuming they figure out a way to define a transfer in a way that doesn't criminalize behavior that it shouldn't (for example making it a felony to leave town for more than two weeks without performing a background check on your wife). But what does registration add? Why is it important to determine "who owned what originally"? UBCs should be sufficient do determine that the seller is not prohibited from owning a weapon and to demonstrate that the buyer is also not prohibited from owning a weapon. At that point, why is it important to know what weapons either party owns? Unless of course you think it is important to know what weapons everybody owns, law-abiding or otherwise. In which case the goal of registration is not to prevent the transfer to an unlawful person, but something else entirely.

[jmg257]

16. Registration, as stated numerous times, adds deterence to lying, trafficking, possession, &c.

All the arguments for UBC are greatly strengthened by tying it with registration.

How easy would it be to do straw purchases, if one only had to worry about passing their own BC at the initial sale? After that they can 'lose' guns by the buckets, and no one would know. But if those guns get tranferred illegally, and have been registered at the original point of sale, LE will be able to know just who they came from when they show up somewhere.

Whenever a person is found in possession of a gun not registered to them, odds are pretty good (depending on the law) it is now contraband, can be confiscated, and the person charged. Also helps as in CA with disarming felons and others barred from possession by giving the ability to see if their registered guns have been transferred per law.

Again - many people will likely take more responsibility of what happens with their guns if they can easily be traced back to them - make sure who you are tranferring to AND that you are doing it lawfully (w/a BC through FFL, or whatever).

Plenty of plusses to registration. Not just transfers, but illegal trafficking, possession by unlawful persons, to better identify illegal guns, mke owners more responsible, etc. etc.

[rrneck]

17. How do you prosecute a crime without evidence?

The DA will have to prove the owner was lying about the gun being stolen. There will be no meaningful risk for malefactors, considerable risk for honest mistakes, billions wasted in useless regulation and the "flow of guns" will simply run around a useless obstacle that will get Democrats voted out of office.

How would you prove a gun wasn't lost or stolen?

[jmg257]

18. They'll figure it out. Most will be bargained anyway. We have to consider mandatory sentences

though too for those found guilty. Judges issue arrest warrants quite often based on sworn statements - they are evidence; there would also be the better investigation tools that registration laws provides, i.e. laws that require stolen guns are reported in timely matter, etc..

Anyway - UBC/Registration is THE best soluton to reducing trafficking, reducing the number of illegal guns, and possibly those illegally possessed - other then outright & complete bans.

CA and NY use registration often and effectively.
The cost - whatever it might be, could be worth it - there are even ways to pay for it too - like a registration fee, a tax, or whatever.

All it takes is the support & will to follow through; most of the negatives could be figured out to make it effective for several of the various goals.

[rrneck]

21. "They'll figure it out" isn't good enough.

Mandatory sentences for failure to do paperwork? We don't have enough non violent offenders in prison already?

Look at what you're actually trying to do.
You advocating legislation that will allow you to prosecute a paperwork crime on a gun that has to be:

1. Located.
2. Associated with the original purchaser (there are millions of unregistered guns out there now)
3. Prove a conspiracy case against the purchaser using testimony of a criminal (if you can find him).

We can't keep uo with it now just regulating FFL's. What do you think will happen when we make every gun owner in the country, over eighty million of them, a de facto FFL? How many guns don't get sold now because the seller didn't like the look of the buyer? You don't really think every gun transfer is between shady characters do you? If you take responsibility every transfer, a lot more transfers will take place. More guns will actually "flow" faster and you don't have a way to prosecute a fraction of illegal transfers now. It'll be a straw buyers market.

Only a small fraction of guns are used in crime. You will only be able to prosecute a small fraction of the illegal transfers associated with them. And you will have to document the chain of custody of every gun made forever to do it. Between changes in how illegal guns move and increased market expansion for straw purchases whatever benefit you might hope to get from the law will be buried by its liabilities. And that's not to mention the people that will die because they couldn't jump through the right paperwork hoops or the political disaster that will follow.

The senate vote went down the way it did because they took one look at it and said, "This shit will never work". The rest was just deciding who should vote how so each party could blame the other time election time.

[jmg257]

22. Never said UBC has to be done by owners. That is what FFLs are for.

Likely people will not be so quick to just buy and sell and tranfer guns, to who knows who, without much thought if it isn't quite so convenient to do so, and especially if illegal transfers can be more easily tracked back to you at any time (hence registration).

Mandatory sentences for failure to do paperwork?
Registration violations have little to do with the correct paperwork - it really isn't all that hard. Done quite often actually in NY. Violations would however make it easier to pick out those guns that are possessed illegally, and those who possess them illegally - just like they do now in NY & CA.

We don't have enough non violent offenders in prison already?
Prisons are for people who break the law. When we want a deterence to unwanted behavior, we enact laws and issue penalties. Don't want to go to jail? Don't want to lose your gun rights? Remain lawful. Illegal gun trafficking is VERY harmful to society as these reports state - whether the seller himself is actually violent is not the real issue.

How many guns don't get sold now because the seller didn't like the look of the buyer?
Don't know - likely not that many. Many sellers possibly just want cash, and as long as they don't know a person is barred from possession, they are covered legally. It is better to be sure either way AND track who has what to detect violations. More thought more responsibility, less straw sales, sales must go through FFL &c.

If you take responsibility every transfer, a lot more transfers will take place.
Confused here. Your guns are registered. You transfer them illegally, much better chance of YOU being held responsible eventually. Multiple straw sales by traffickers will be more easily detected, leading to more investigations and prosecutions, with better evidence of original ownership. Convictions will keep such person from passing background check next time. Straw sales will decline greatly for numerous reasons.

Only a small fraction of guns are used in crime.
That report states as high as 77% of criminals acquire guns in ways that UBC & registration will affect positively. Databases are QUITE easy to deal with these days - PCs with proper software are wonderful. Shouldn't take much to create a viable & secure product. Shit - put it in the Cloud for whatever authorities need access...or whatever. We flew to the moon in 1969, surely an effective database system can be created in 2013.

people will die because they couldn't jump through the right paperwork hoops
Not really...It REALLY isn't all that hard. Handgun registration happens quite often in NY, and that isn't even a streamlined system. All it takes is recording serial numbers & owners in a database somehow - not really a big deal, especially at time of purchase by FFLs set-up with a system to do so. Pass background check, have the #s recorded, & you are on your way. Hmm...maybe we have a FFID number assigned to us for database & ID purposes, so social security numbers are kept secure...whatever.


The senate vote went down because it didn't have enough support, and the typical pro-gun scare & political tactics. Likely many people think that UBC & ANY hint of registration leads to confiscation and so are scared of actually doing something that would make a difference.


We could go on all day, but its getting late and I'm losing interest. So far seems the benefits outweigh the negatives. Likely we will never know though, but doesn't seem all that hard to come up with a system that address much of the complaints and be effective. As mentioned earlier just takes the will.

[rrneck]

24. I hate numbers but...

There are three hundred million guns in this country and they're making more every day. I looked at the FBI website and added up the firearm related murders, robberies and aggravated assaults for 2010, which came to 273,961. But lets be generous and call it 300,000. That means that about 1% of the guns in this country are used in crime. Now take away from that percentage all the people that:

1. Commit first time felonies.
2. Get a gun transferred anyway by beating the system.
3. Get a gun transferred anyway because there are millions of unregisterable firearms that will last a hundred years.
4. Steal a gun.
5. Use a gun and throw it away never to be seen again.
6. Simply decide to not use a gun and murder, rob and brutalize without slowing down. That's important since most of those kind of crimes are committed without guns anyway. A gun for most criminals is just bling.

When you remove all those from your background check scheme you will only stop a tiny fraction of firearm crimes and you will do it by:

1. Creating a searchable database of millions of people's relationships which would be a data mining bonanza for someone like Dick Cheney. And you want to put that data in the "cloud".

2. Create a bureaucracy tasked to maintain chain of custody for each and every gun made forever. Just the paperwork for that will be huge, but taking any kind of action based on that data will require at least two guys with guns and badges for each action, and there aren't enough cops in the universe to do that. They can't even come close to doing it now and you want to expand their responsibilities by several orders of magnitude.

3. Piss off millions of gun owners by making them jump through hoops to transfer a gun when they know people who get away with transferring them every day if they don't mind lying to the cops.

4. Sending a special delivery custom made "big government invading your privacy" election issue gift to the Republicans to make Democrats look like elitist assholes and energize their base with gun confiscation rumors.

I don't think California is a good example to use to support the value universal background checks.

Southern California is home to 58 percent of the population and 66 percent of the traced crime guns, data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shows. Predictably, the largest counties – Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego and Riverside – yielded the most firearms.

The eastern seaboard might be a different story.

It's late here and that's all that comes to mind offhand. A lot of people are having this exact same conversation all over the country, and there are a lot more questions than answers. You're not ordering a steak here. You can't just demand it be done and expect somebody else to figure it out for you because somebody has already figured it out, and what they have discovered is that it won't work.

[CokeMachine]

23. Wrong about California -- except assault weapons there is no registration!

26.How do I know if my firearms need to be registered?

There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers. However, you may submit a Firearm Ownership Record to the DOJ for any firearm you own. Having a Firearm Ownership Record on file with the DOJ may help in the return of your firearm if it is lost or stolen. With very few and specific exceptions, all firearm transactions must be conducted through a firearms dealer.

emphasis added
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9

[gejohnston]

20. community guns date back to the 19th century

among urban gangs. Many simply rented them in urban areas, even though they could have simply gone to the nearest gun shop.

[jimmy the one]

6. the bigger picture

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds.. Murders committed with a gun dropped 39% to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report.

Certainly gun murder & rates dropped dramatically over the past 20 years, after RISING dramatically the previous 30 years when the national gunstock tripled & rose from 75 millions to ~225 millions, ~1963 - 1993;
Imagine a bell curve with 1963 to the extreme left & 2012 to the right, with a large upward bump in the middle representing gun murders, THAT is the BULGE which the huge increase in total guns has caused, & it has now, 2013, settled back down to 1963 rates (~3/100k) after reaching about 7/100k about 1993. (And medical treatment for gunshot wounds has improved thus saving more lives now than was possible in 20th century).

Put in perspective, 1963 - 1993 gunstock tripled, gun murder doubled.
1993 - 2013 gunstock increased ~50%, gunmurders decreased by ~half.
Like cattle thieves bragging 'we don't steal cattle as much as we did 30 years ago! we've decreased cattle rustling by 50% but boy have we got rich by selling what we stole the past 50 years!"

To take 1993 as a 'start point' dismisses the 30 year period prior, & makes a false conclusion that gunstock increases helped decrease gunmurder rates, when it was GUNSTOCK TRIPLING WHICH CAUSED MURDER RATES TO INCREASE TO RECORD LEVELS TO BEGIN WITH.

Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70%..

Again, implying false credit to guns where none is due; violent crime rates remain near tripled today since early 60's, where national gunstock quadrupled from ~75 millions to ~300 millions. Guns were a large reason for increasing crime & murder.

howzit: Translation: We need to ban more guns on general principle, even if it has no beneficial effect...

We need to ban assault rifles & hi cap ammo clips since they belong on battlefields not communities, & that has been an accepted principle in most all western industrialized civilized countries, and there HAVE been beneficial effects.

[gejohnston]

9. false

To take 1993 as a 'start point' dismisses the 30 year period prior, & makes a false conclusion that gunstock increases helped decrease gunmurder rates, when it was GUNSTOCK TRIPLING WHICH CAUSED MURDER RATES TO INCREASE TO RECORD LEVELS TO BEGIN WITH.

the rising crime caused higher gun sales that mostly sat unused in sock drawers

We need to ban assault rifles & hi cap ammo clips since they belong on battlefields not communities, & that has been an accepted principle in most all western industrialized civilized countries, and there HAVE been beneficial effects.

That isn't true either. Since assault rifles are capable of automatic or burst fire, they have been strictly regulated since 1934. In spite what politicians claim, ARs etc. are not used on battlefields.

[spin]

12. The number of firearms in civilian hands are just one factor in the crime equation. ....

It appears it simplistic and unrealistic to claim that either more guns = more crime or more guns = less crime.

Civilian gun owners can be divided into two main groups, honest and responsible gun owners and criminals who own guns. The more dangerous of the two groups is obviously the criminal element. Therefore efforts to stop the sale of firearms to violent criminals would do more to reduce gun violence in our nation than "feel good" laws such as another assault weapons ban. Strict enforcement of existing laws and the imposition of strong punishments for those who violent these laws might discourage criminals from frequently carrying firearms and even possessing them. Also anyone who straw purchases a firearm or is involved in smuggling firearms into the inner streets of or cities should face a long term in prison.

Of course, while extremely rare, some previously honest gun owners develop mental issues and run amok causing tragedies. In most of the cases the shooter has waved numerous red flags in his past which were largely ignored. Improvements in our mental health care system might help reduce these incidents.

I personally support the concept of universal background checks as long as they do not apply to transfers between immediate family members or require any form of registration beyond what would be required at a licensed dealer.

I feel the assault weapons ban and limitations on magazine size is not the only things that can be done to reduce gun violence and senseless massacres.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Wish Granted! New assault rifles were effectively banned in 1986.

Any other requests?

[ileus]

7. Remember it's about their need for CONTROL

Stay safe and carry on...

[petronius]

14. It seems that the count of 'gun crime' they're using includes all crimes, whether

or not a person is shot (injured). But WISQARS indicates that non-fatal assault-related firearms injuries have increased since 2001, while fatal injuries have decreased. So does that mean that:

1) guns are being used less frequently in crimes, but
2) people are being shot more, but
3) people who are shot survive more often?

It also looks like the bulk of the improvement cited in that report occurred early, from 1993 ~ 2000. It would be nice to get the injury data from that earlier period as well...

[geckosfeet]

26. Consider that the number of guns in the country has increased as the crime rate has decreased.

Get ready for the "advances in health care make death obsolete" rebuttal.

I say that if we can provide better life saving health care we should be able to provide better access to mental health care and begin to address the sources of violence. Who knows - this may in fact be contributing to the reductions we see.