How Do Criminals Get Their Guns? (Page 4)

sebtheanimal: Point taken medic, you are right

introspec: Sebt, good post, except.................
Automatic weapons, machine guns are illegal in every state, and have been since about 1933...
Agree, brickbat, knife, automobile will kill just as dead.......
And a hard hearted woman is pretty malignant, too....LOL

sebtheanimal: Neighbors were having fun with machine guns in the woods where I lived. Also where they manufacture H&K, some of the nicest ones. Legal in VA, it is one of the nicest states I might add.
Refer to Virginia State Police Machine Gun Registration:
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_MachineGun.shtm

Classic_Pandora: Well.. here's my thoughts.

Guns are in the hands of Criminals through different means. They steal them. They buy them on the black market. Seriously, there's a way to make the gun's ID number located in a small spot to disappear. (Thank you very much CSI and NCIS for showing the criminals how to find that number... they now are using this for their benefit.)

All of the ways that have been presented are easy ways. Not everyone who holds a gun in the US have a license.

That's basically the problem however. The US has always been about the right to bear arms. I think this has to be altered some so that it can be made to be that not everyone has the right to bear arms. That's just me, though, considering that people feel like prisoners in their own homes at times.

introspec: Wow..........I did not know machine guns were legal in any state in USA..........
Knew police and military machine guns legal...........
But, legal in Virginia?....I did not know that....and, stand corrected....

StuckInTheSixties:

Wow! So much to get caught up on here with this thread. I’ve not gotten any notifications of posts here since the big Wireclub changeover.

First, as it was said on page 2 of this thread:

How do criminals get their guns?

According to a study the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, almost four out of five "criminal guns" (that's the term I'll use here for brevity) come from one of three sources:

~ 43.6 % come from what is commonly referred to as a "straw purchase."
~ 20.5 % come from an unlicensed seller
~ 13.9 % come from gun shows and flea markets
_________
78.0 % total

The remainder come from all other sources, including conventional, documented purchases and weapons that had been reported stolen.

Now … looking at page 3 …

This is off topic, but franklin makes reference to the ill-thought program by BATF of what was called “gunwalking,” the idea of which was to refrain from making arrests in some circumstances in order to follow the guns and link them to drug “kingpins.” franklin’s comments are critical of the present administration in this regard, as they should be, but it should also be known that this program has been used for many years, and originated during the Bush administration. There’s plenty of blame to go around. (Later introspec makes reference to the same scandal, although he doesn’t specifically pin the blame on the current administration as franklin does, but rather, blames “Washington.”)

But that’s off topic …

introspec suggests that the BATF is a “bad source of information.” His evidence: the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Of course, neither of those incidents has anything whatsoever to do with the record keeping capabilities of the BATF. The rest of his post was seemingly just a scattering of random thoughts and is simply to incoherent to comment on.

Continuing on to page 4 …

ifuaint1sturlast brings up the notion of “gun safes.” This prompts a question:

Should gun owners be held to any responsibility if their guns are stolen (which clearly puts them into the hands of criminals)?

medic17 says:
“I think we need stiffer penalties for the criminals.”

I assume you mean, at least in part, that criminals violating gun laws should suffer stiffer penalties. Few people would argue with that, and it’s the gun-advocates mantra: “Harsher penalties for criminals!” The only problem with that is that this is a “remedy” that is implemented AFTER the crime. It’s not a preventative measure. Most usages of a gun in the commission of a crime are not well considered. The deterrence factor is, often as not, lost on criminals. It’s not like they’re carefully measuring the potential punishments, calculating how harsh it’ll be if they’re apprehended for that gun crime, and deciding whether or not to proceed on that basis.

HardcoreHerbivore says:
“A guy with a license to purchase guns would fill up his trunk with guns and them sell them on the street for 3 times the cost.A real entrepreneur !!! I don`t know if the ATF monitors the number of guns that a person buys; but guns are manufactured in order to make a profit,right?I think that those who financially benefit from gun sales aren`t too worried about what they are used for.Less guns for criminals equals less money for them.”

Unfortunately, many states do not allow any record keeping on the kind of purchases you describe. You can thank the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the like for that. There is a certain segment of our society that views ANY restriction on guns of ANY SORT, such as monitoring, regulating, restricting, or registering the sort of trafficking of firearms you describe. I’d be interested in any opinions as to why society should tolerate this. What benefit do we gain from it?

sebtheanimal says:
“[The criminal] could have used a knife or a baseball bat, resulting in much more agony to the victim.”

Sure. He also could use a corkscrew, or a weedwacker, or any other implement. The issue here isn’t how cruel the tool of violence is. seb is attempting to equate guns with knives and baseball bats, but if that was the case, we’d see headlines like this:

"Knife wielding man kills 9, wounds 17 before turning the knife on himself"

"Innocent bystander slain in drive-by baseball bat bludgeoning"

"Restaurant employees herded into storeroom, executed with knife during robbery"

You don't see those headlines, do you?

Substitute "gun" for knife and baseball bat. Now it’s not all that uncommon, is it?

I suggest you rethink that "knife/baseball bat” statement.

(Apologies for subjecting seb to this reply, used in a separate, but related thread, for a second time.)

sebtheanimal says:
“Guns were illegal in Washington DC (until recently) but it was known as the homicide capital.”

Well, that would be relevant but for the fact that the Capital is surrounded by states that have very unrestrictive gun laws. Guns flow into Washington from elsewhere.

sebtheanimal says:
“Just a few miles from DC, in Virginia, machine guns are legal yet it is a relatively tranquil state.”

Virginia does, indeed, have some of the most unrestrictive gun laws found anywhere in the USA. It doesn’t have the “tranquility” you allude to, though. Virginia ranks 18th in the nation in gun homicides. That means almost two thirds of the states have lower gun homicide rates. Virginia has the same problems and the same crime as the rest of America. Although this is anecdotal, and not evidentiary, I hasten to remind you of the Virginia Tech massacre that took place on April 16, 2007. Thirty two people were killed, and twenty five were wounded. Not exactly what I’d call “tranquil.”

Introspec says:
“Automatic weapons, machine guns are illegal in every state, and have been since about 1933 …”

Seb the animal says:
“Legal in VA …”

Here are the facts:

Fully automatic firearms – “machine guns” – are legal, but heavily restricted, for the public in all states except California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Rhode Island and Washington.

Introspec referred to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (off by a year … no biggie), which outlawed machine guns. But even so, they are allowed, but heavily restricted, and must be registered federally. (A cursory Google search will provide any reader with the details.)

Pandorasinsane says:
“… there’s a way to make the gun's ID number located in a small spot to disappear …”

True. It’s generally against the law to be in possession of a gun with the serial number removed. Unfortunately, the penalties are not very severe. They should be.

Pandorasinsane says:
“The US has always been about the right to bear arms. I think this has to be altered some so that it can be made to be that not everyone has the right to bear arms.”

Certain people are generally prohibited from gun ownership, such as felons. Personally, I would like to see a mandatory registration of every single firearm, and a mandatory “chain of ownership.” Along with this, there should be restrictions on what I would call “unreasonable ownership and trafficking” of firearms. HardcoreHerbivore described such trafficking, where a guy purchases a trunk load of weapons and then traffics them in what only can be called a “black market.” Implementing measures like this would not seriously curtail the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and would seriously stem the flow of that 78% of “criminal guns” referred to at the beginning of his (admittedly long) post.

Classic_Pandora: Here's the problem with stopping the black marketing. There are certain organizations that do this to catch arms dealers. Basically they become above the law, even though it is a sting operation.

That being said, the arms dealers find themselves thinking, the law is above their rules, so we are too. When hypocracy exists, the problem comes into play with taking on the same mentality of the law.

I agree there should be stricter laws, however, the only way to have stricter laws is to take away the rights to bear arms at first, then lower that standard. It's another hypocritical way of doing things, but we're already dealing with hypocracy anyhow.

StuckInTheSixties:

I don't understand that post at all ...

Classic_Pandora: Ok.. what part didn't you understand?

introspec: Stucko, there you go again............
Discipline is required to answer in succinct fashion...........
Try the old newspaper axiom: What, when, where, why, who........in first paragraph....
Who in hades wants to read countless lines of palaver? intro

StuckInTheSixties:

I don't understand that post either, introspec.

Pandorasinsane, the only part of your comment that I understood was the statement: "I agree there should be stricter laws ..."

Perhaps introspec could explain it for me.

introspec: LOL, Stucko, any post longer than about 100 words gets deep sixed................(shxx canned)

StuckInTheSixties:

Perhaps he can't ...

introspec: Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh...............................

Kaizoe: The question is not how the criminal gets a gun, nor how a gun ends up in the hands of criminals. The question to ask is why are they criminals? A crime is easier to get rid of if there is no perpetrator, no one to do the deed then.
The whole thing is not material, but psychological, really.
Why do the feel they need the gun? What made their life what it is? Where do we turn to get an answer to this question?
To be a bit boring and answer the shallow question: they didn't get their guns in some cases, like 22% of the A.T.F. numbers would be one or two additional sources, and a number that may or may not be bigger as they can't be confirmed; either taken from lock-ups, and/or they are guns that don't exist. Either the guns have never been made, or they haven't been shipped out. And non-existing things appearing here and there aren't that uncommon.

Kaizoe: Orly?

medic17: I agree with you if, somewhat...but that being said... Only pussies use guns. It takes more intelligence and skill for a good old fashioned hand to hand combat. Come to think of it, how would that look in wars? No weapons allowed, only true skill. Any idiot can fire a gun....we all have choices though. Unfortunately the idiots with guns often miss their intended targets and kill children...that is unacceptable and unforgiveable.

Kaizoe: No guns? So an organized brawl?

StuckInTheSixties:

TauKiloOmega says:
"The question is not how the criminal gets a gun ..."

Yeah, it is. Look up at the top of this page. It says "How do criminals get their guns?"

"... nor how a gun ends up in the hands of criminals. The question to ask is why are they criminals? A crime is easier to get rid of if there is no perpetrator, no one to do the deed then.

Yeah, well, as the saying goes ... "If wishes was fishes ..."

That's all fine and intellectual dandy, but while you're figuring out why criminals are criminals, which is a noble and worthwhile pursuit, people are getting their asses shot off. For the purposes of this thread, I'm less interested in the question of why criminals do what they do, and more interested in the question of how they get the guns they use, and how to make it more difficult for them to do so while not trampling on the rights of law-abiding non-criminals.

TauKiloOmega says:
The whole thing is not material, but psychological, really.

Cough cough ... um ... ask the victim of a gun crime, or that victims survivors, if it's material or not.

TauKiloOmega says:
Why do the feel they need the gun? What made their life what it is? Where do we turn to get an answer to this question? To be a bit boring and answer the shallow question: they didn't get their guns in some cases, like 22% of the A.T.F. numbers would be one or two additional sources, and a number that may or may not be bigger as they can't be confirmed; either taken from lock-ups, and/or they are guns that don't exist. Either the guns have never been made, or they haven't been shipped out. And non-existing things appearing here and there aren't that uncommon.

Um ... what?!? Perhaps you could find some way to rephrase that to make your thoughts a little clearer ... ?

Was any other reader able to comprehend that? If so, perhaps they could reiterate it ...

Kaizoe: You fail to get my meaning (which isn't really surprising)...
The problem isn't that they have guns, the problem is that they want to do harm. So it become not a question of "how do they get the guns" but "what makes them want weaponry? What is the purpose, what is the psychological effect for it?".

Getting to the outlet of the guns to the criminals hands, trying to hamper them while not trample on the rights of the civilian is probably a slower solution to the problem then eradicating the criminal mindset.

The victims are, mostly, not a conscious target, just any person, so it is psychological. Don't blame the gun/knife/whatever you can kill with for the deaths (excluding collateral damage in drive-bys).

Mentioning gang violence a bit fast, you have the psyche, again, and the sense of belonging and that "the other faction has to be destroyed because they want to destroy us!", which is an artificial idea and comes from some need of violence. The mentality, a scared psyche is the problem, not real that guns are somehow available.

I guess you haven't dealt with anyone telling you that something that you can see, something you can touch, something that a whole heap of people are talking about, is in fact, not there, it doesn't exist.
An unknown number of these guns are out there, but they are not suppose to be. They are either officially locked up in some warehouse, or they haven't really been made, or shipped out.

StuckInTheSixties:

TauKiloOmega says:
"The problem isn't that they have guns, the problem is that they want to do harm. So it become not a question of "how do they get the guns" but "what makes them want weaponry? What is the purpose, what is the psychological effect for it?"."

Okay ...
1. Answer those questions.
2. Once you answer those questions, implement those answers to take care of the problem.
3. While that's going on, do you just want to let things be as they are now, or would you want to do anything, and if so, what?

TauKiloOmega says:
"Getting to the outlet of the guns to the criminals hands, trying to hamper them while not trample on the rights of the civilian is probably a slower solution to the problem then eradicating the criminal mindset."

I might take that seriously if you can first answer 1, 2 and 3 above.

TauKiloOmega says:
"The victims are, mostly, not a conscious target, just any person ..."

You're suggesting that most gun violence is random? That the victim is never specifically targeted? Just random people? Let's see some documentation to prove that.

TauKiloOmega says:
"... so it is psychological.

So WHAT is psychological?

TauKiloOmega says:
"Don't blame the gun/knife/whatever you can kill with for the deaths (excluding collateral damage in drive-bys)."

No, I blame the person committing the violence, including collateral damage in drive-bys. So?

TauKiloOmega says:
"Mentioning gang violence a bit fast, you have the psyche, again, and the sense of belonging and that "the other faction has to be destroyed because they want to destroy us!", which is an artificial idea and comes from some need of violence. The mentality, a scared psyche is the problem, not real that guns are somehow available."

And so your answer to gang violence is ... ?

TauKiloOmega says:
"I guess you haven't dealt with anyone telling you that something that you can see, something you can touch, something that a whole heap of people are talking about, is in fact, not there, it doesn't exist."

No, I haven't dealt with anyone telling me something silly like that ... until now.

TauKiloOmega says:
"An unknown number of these guns are out there, but they are not suppose to be. They are either officially locked up in some warehouse, or they haven't really been made, or shipped out.

Was any other reader able to comprehend that? If so, perhaps they could reiterate it ...

Kaizoe: I've only tried to get it in to you that regulating the tools of a crime won't take crimes, or criminals away.It's hard to see that any physical actions of controlling the flow of guns out the the "criminals"
(I've had a hard time using that word as it's a bit ambiguous. you're a criminal as soon as you have done a unlawful act), especially when you got people willingly selling them guns (not as straw purchases, "unlicensed" sellers or flea market/gun shows) to get guns out on the streets.
Take a look at the system instead of trying to get a bunch of people on a forum to answer your question.