117,000 handguns are stolen every year. That is more than enough to commit all the murders.

[Logical]

First off, I hate the NRA. They are a right wing organization. Their only purpose is to sell guns and elect GOP candidates. I have made many posts against the NRA and have never defended them. I think promoting the NRA on the DU should be an automatic ban.

According to the Department of Justice, 117,000 handguns are stolen every year. That is only handguns. And I only counted the guns not recovered in 6 months. Lets say 1/2 of rest are recovered in the next year, that still means 58,000 handguns enter the hands of criminals a year. No background check law will stop that from happening.

Lets say 50% of those are at some point removed from circulation in 5 years. That still means after 5 years you have 125,000 stolen guns in circulation. In 10 years you have 250,000 stolen guns in the hands of criminals.

And remember, at least 10-20 million new guns are LEGALLY sold a year. And no one in congress is going to stop guns from being sold. If you disagree, please point me to a senator who has asked for a total banning of gun sales.

Firearms were stolen in only about four percent of the burglaries. And only one gun was stolen in about 60% of the gun burglaries. So these were not the "gun grabbers" or "gun nuts" that the DU loves to call out. These were probably people who had one gun in their home for protection.

There are about 9,000 murders a year by guns. That means just the yearly stolen handguns are 6 times the number needed to commit all the murders in the USA. Without ONE legally owned gun committing one of those murders.

All the gun laws in the world are not going to stop guns from being stolen and used for crimes. Sure, you can pass "reporting stolen weapons" laws, but they are still stolen.

I 100% think every state needs laws to force gun owners to secure loaded guns from their young children. But these laws do not stop a criminal from stealing the gun. And many households have no young children.

And you will never stop people from having their guns stolen. No matter how many laws you pass.

And I am sure I will hear "If your stolen gun is used to commit a crime then you go to jail for the crime." That is too silly to even begin to discuss. And guns would still be stolen.

The point here is that this problem might not have any solution. Mass shootings make up a very small amount of the total murders. Mass shootings in 2012 killed 151 people out of the 9,000 murders committed by guns. But for some reason we want to spend all the time on mass shootings and not other violence/poverty issues.

Unless you ban gun sales and collect all 300 million guns, which is illegal to do, this problem will not go away.

With 300 millions guns being in circulation and 10-20 million new guns sold every year, you will not stop gun violence unless we address poverty, education, etc.

We would be better off spending efforts on stopping people from wanting to murder someone.


Source: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-victims-2012

[NYC_SKP]

1. Poverty.

Poverty and hopelessness, income and other inequities, and all growing worse over time.

These are the root causes of violence and it pisses me off that so many ignore this fundamental truth.

Yes, background checks and harsh penalties for gun crime are all good ideas, but it's far more important to fight against the powerful and for the lower and middle classes.

K/R

[Logical]

2. I have no issue in locking up someone who commits Gun violence for life. I am usually not....

a big "lock them u and throw away a key" type but for someone who shoots another person with a gun while committing a crime, I am all for it.

And a felon on parole in possession of a gun I am fine with them doing 10 more years.

[bluedigger]

3. The easiest way to conduct a strawman purchase is to report the gun "stolen".

No statistics will ever account for that. Rinse, lather, repeat.

[Logical]

4. Seems like the police could figure out a real burglary from a fake one in some cases. n-t

[bluedigger]

5. Yeah, like the last time I reported my vehicle broken into and they never responded.

Maybe Kojak has time for that in small towns, but forget about it in the city.

[Logical]

13. Great point, they seldom respond. I am sure they had a pot dealer to arrest instead! n-t

[bluedigger]

16. At best they record serial numbers and file a report.

If they are proactive they check the pawnshops, but usually they just wait for the weapon to surface in an unrelated crime. Dusting for prints is a TV fantasy outside of capital crimes.

[Logical]

18. So true, TV makes it look like they do that for all home burglaries. n-t

[DanTex]

6. Are you just googling random numbers and comparing them to each other?

This post is so completely illogical it's hard to know where to begin.

We can't tell ahead of time which people are going to commit crimes, so reducing the overall number of guns in circulation, particularly in the hands of dangerous people, is going to reduce the number of murders. Making it more difficult for people with a criminal record to acquire a gun will reduce the number of murders.

Sure, a person hell-bent on committing murder might still be able to get a gun even with sensible gun laws. But most murders aren't committed by people who are hell-bent on committing murder. They are committed in escalating arguments, or in the course of committing another crime like robbery.

It's not like the 100,000 stolen are sitting in a pile, and whenever someone wants to commit murder they just go grab one, and at the end of each year there are 90,000 left over. The issue is reducing gun availability.

[Logical]

7. LOL, illogical. Are you claiming stolen guns do not commit 1000s of crimes a year? Also....

What is your solution to solve the problem. 300 million guns in circulation. Most mass murders are killed by legally owned guns. I will be waiting for your analysis.

LOL, you said "in the course of committing another crime like robbery". Well, how do you think they want to obtain that gun. Through a local firearms dealer? Or from their friend who has a illegal one.

You are one of those people here who spew forth how bad things are but have no LOGICAL solution.

And you are serious about people with a criminal record not buying stolen guns? I would post more stats for you but doubt you would read them.

I think you much more would enjoy using emotion than facts. It sounds better to you I guess.

[bluedigger]

8. The "logical" solution is to ban and seize all guns.

But we all know this issue will not be decided by logic.

[Logical]

11. And once again, who is willing to do that? n-t

[bluedigger]

14. When logic fails...

[Logical]

15. So no answer. I get it. n-t

[bluedigger]

17. Rhetorical questions do not require answers. n/t

[Logical]

19. You proposed the solution, not me. But I guess you were just trolling. n-t

[bluedigger]

25. No, you are trolling.

I just pointed out that the logical solution wasn't possible in our society. Your premise is that there is no solution, isn't it? You support the status quo, and I would like to reduce gun crime. I'll continue to look for acceptable ways to do that, while you continue to enable the perpetrators.

[Logical]

27. LOL, define "acceptable" and the problem is solved. Think about it. n-t

[bluedigger]

31. No shit.

If it was easy, it would already be done.

[jmg257]

21. Maybe the solution is to not so readily agree that we can't do anything

About guns. Not be so accepting of the status quo.

Illegal guns, legal guns, stolen guns, murders and suicides by guns,gun accidents, gun massacres, &c &c "&c.

Guns is the 1 common thing in all these problems. Seems the solution is rather obvious.

[Logical]

26. I 100% agree guns are the problem. But how to fix it when they are 100% legal to buy and own? n-t

[jmg257]

30. Seems obvious doesn't it. You keep answering ur own questions.nt

[Logical]

9. In the time I read your post I found this for you. You could of found it also.....

Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says

Christmas is the one day of the year that Wal-Mart is closed, but for a group of four New Mexico burglars, it was the perfect time to stop in for some firearms.

Video surveillance cameras caught the masked burglars red-handed, stealing rifle after rifle. Police arrested the four men, and were able to recover the guns. But all too often, stolen weapons end up in the hands of criminals.

The New Mexico caper is part of a flood of gun thefts nationwide. And it's not only commercial gun dealers vulnerable to theft.

Guns are a top target for home burglars looking for something they can easily sell on the street.

More stuff for you at the link! Read it and get back to me. LOL.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fueling-crime-us-study/story?id=18318610#.UU3OhhePOSo

[jmg257]

22. Yep - THE problem is the availability of firearms. Nt

[Logical]

24. Which no one will touch. Since guns are legal. Even the senate or house would not ban them. n-t

[jmg257]

33. For now. Unfortunately, itll take A few more massacres,but things will keep

Changing. The distraction away from "guns" isnt working so well anymore.

[Logical]

35. Why do you focus on the 150 people killed in mass shootings a year and not the 9000? n-t

[jmg257]

47. I'm not focused only on them. I'm telling you what will make everyone else

take notice of THE problem. And accept that things need to change.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. It seems likely that the people you want to disarm most will be the last to disarm.

Gun control here in the UK works because it's tight enough that there *are* very few guns, and so it's hard to get hold of one even if you are willing to break the law to do so.

I am. if not dismissive, at least highly sceptical of the value of gun control measures looser than that, at least when it comes to deliberate shootings- I think that if anyone has easy access to guns, criminals will, so basically you need to repeal the second amendment to do much good.

That said, a lot of gun deaths in America are accidents or suicides, and half-measures gun control probably would help reduce those. But no law that relies on people obeying it will much reduce deliberate shootings, I suspect.

If guns are outlawed, not even outlaws will have guns. But if they're merely restricted, people willing to ignore the restrictions will do so.

[DanTex]

32. It's more complicated than that.

To bring up just one issue, most criminals are young, and have relatively short careers. Since they aren't born with guns, that means they need to acquire them somehow. So it's not really a question of disarming, it's a question of making it more difficult for people to get guns.

Second, of course it's not feasible to make it 100% impossible for a criminal to acquire a gun. But that's not the point. You can make it a lot more difficult. For example, if all guns were registered, it would be a lot harder to get away with straw purchasing, which is a big way that criminals acquire guns now. If all gun sales required background checks, then it would be much harder for criminals to purchase guns on the private market.

Sure, some criminals will still be willing to take the risks and put in the effort to acquire a gun. This happens even in the UK. But it's not a black-and-white thing. It's a sliding scale. The more difficult and costly you make it (cost measured not just in dollars but in effort, time, and risk), the less criminals will do it, choosing instead to commit their crimes without guns, or even to not commit crimes at all.

And of course then there's the fact that the whole "good guys versus criminals" worldview is flawed to begin with...

[Logical]

36. Once, again, you will never register all guns. Please show me where there is 10% of the Senate...

or House willing to discuss that.

Also, you seems to want to ignore stolen weapons because it does not fit in with your "solution".

Reality is that guns will always be in the hand of the people causing the issue.

Some people just do not want to admit that there is maybe no solution.

How have the drug wars worked out for the USA?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. "would people vote for it" and "Would it be a good thing if they did" are two independent

questions.

I totally agree that there is no chance whatsoever of even remotely sane gun laws in the USA in the forseeable future. That does not mean that it wouldn't be a good thing if by some miracle they were introduced, though.

And the evidence suggests that you're wrong about the viability of getting guns out of people's hands - it's worked fine here in the UK. What is lacking the USA is the political will - you'd need to repeal the second amendment, and as you say the chance of that happening is, unfortunately, zero.

[Logical]

40. True, without the 2nd it would be easier. I also think your country is not as violent as us. n-t

[randr]

12. Make it a crime not to have guns secured

And then enforce the laws.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Agreed.

Proper secure storage should be something that all gun owners consider an integral part of gun ownership, a component of responsible exercise of their Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, for too many, it isn't. I support mandatory security measures. It's something that might require subsidies for very low income people who want to own guns (I don't like laws that erect an income barrier to the exercise of rights...) as even relatively inexpensive gun safes aren't exactly cheap. So be it.

Another benefit is that such a measure would go a long way in eliminating the "it was stolen" scam often used in straw purchases to protect the buyer from prosecution.

[Logical]

23. Defining secured is the issue. I have mine locked up in a lockable cabinet. But a crowbar....

and a sledge hammer could get in it.

Many people have a small gun safe. But criminals can take the whole safe. Which happens a lot.

Other solutions cost $1000s of dollars. Most people who want a gun for personal protection cannot afford it.

[randr]

29. This is a problem but one we have to face

There are standards of security for many hazardous materials and the level of security required should match the ability of the gun owner to comply. I would argue that people with large arsenals need to provide security to match.

[Logical]

37. I agree, large arsenals should be secured. Dealers specifically. n-t

[Lurks Often]

49. A sufficiently motivated criminal will find a way no matter what.

One of the biggest gun stores in CT was broken into when a group of criminals stole a landscaping truck and backed it right through the exterior wall of the gun store around 3:30am. They were in and out in about 3-5 minutes. IIRC they stole about 20-30 handguns.

Back in the 1920's & 1930's they used to raid National Guard armories for weapons.

[NutmegYankee]

42. All locks and safes can be broken

Hell, the house was often "secured" but that mattered little to a determined thief.

When you say "then enforce the laws", do you mean you want to punish the victim?

[graham4anything]

28. Let's ban gun sales and collect all 300 million guns, and make it legal to do just that

new candidates
new laws
new scotus
new rulings

voila, things get a little easier, once you understand.

instead of nra soundbytes promoting their authoritarian, bully blackmail of candidates to promote the nra propganda like they do.

in fact, let's make the nra a terror organziation and fight them like the war on terror.

zero tolerance.

neat, trim, tidy, end of problem.

[randr]

34. Surely you jest

However in re to the NRA- given the level of support for sales of illegal weapons to people with no back ground checks, the NRA could be considered as complicit to terrorism.
Even their chant of "enforce the existing laws" fails to mention the opposition they raise to funding enforcement.
We are approaching a turning point where we will be making decisions affecting the existing rights of gun owners and I, personally, do not want the NRA to interfere in our public discussion.

[Logical]

38. It is bad when I read a post and have no idea if it is a serious post. None of what you said is....

possible.

You are at the other extreme, unrealistic end of this argument.

[graham4anything]

41. It's like a faulty part on a car

First there is an accident, then 10, then 100, then 1000
at some point, instead of paying off the dead persons family in a major lawsuit to hush it up,
it becomes easier to ask for a total recall.

The statistical raw number point.

Everything is possible with new candidates,judges,scotus.Where there's a will, there's a way

After all, 90% of people don't smoke now

After all, almost nobody puts a sheet over their head, cuts eyeholes in them and marches with the John Birch Society. Some do, but more people now stand and spit on them.

And this is a 1st amendment issue.
ALL first amendment rights are taken away when a private citizen uses a gun/bullet.

The winds of change have already happened.

And stupid is the NRA for wanting zero change. Because they led to their own eradication,
they just are too stupid to realize it.
Why did noone ever see Wayne LaNutJob on tv before recently
Because most politicians will only covertly do the devil's work now.
Leaving Wayne to go out in public.

[Eleanors38]

43. Well, it certainly is "windy" with your post. nt

[Logical]

44. Ok.....

First off, what proof is there that anything has changed? "The winds of change have already happened."

2nd, how is this different than the war on drugs that did nothing?

[graham4anything]

45. Legally, a 3rd party candidate can still run

Logically, without needing any proof, Ralph Nader ensured no 3rd party will ever be taken more than the egotistical self-promoting.
so the person so in favor of more than 2 parties, ensured only 2 parties forever.

Same with the NRA. They self-ericated themselves.

[Logical]

46. I admire your confidence. n-t

[jmg257]

48. You're not serious, right? NY? Colorado? CT soon?

3 months after Newtown gun control is still front page news? Editorials? Political cartoons? Senate Hearings every other week? Numerous gun-related bills in various legislatures across the country? Biden? MAIG? A President with nothing to lose? The Giffords?

Things HAVE changed, though they have settled and slipped back a bit...till the next time. Potential victims got lucky at UCF...so did the NRA and their dupes - they have a bit more time. They won't try to get their house in order, but their silly distractions & 'justifications' aren't working as well as they used too.

When people stop accepting the status quo as the 'way it has to be', plenty of things can change. Combine that with LOTS of people getting REALLY pissed about other people - kids teenagers, loved ones, fathers, mothers, &c - getting mowed down in bunches, and they will change.

[Logical]

50. Lets see in a year what has changed. Federal Laws, etc. n-t

[jmg257]

53. There's an gun activism group up here...since you agree 100% guns are the problem, you should join.

Help become part of the solution, speed along the change, etc.

[bhikkhu]

51. Another "we can't fix everything, so lets do nothing" argument

If universal background checks make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get guns, that's enough reason for me. If it winds up preventing a few killings, that's even better.

Of course we need to do more than background checks and gun registration - an "all of the above" approach is called for, looking at the number of gun deaths.

[XRubicon]

52. Stolen, pffftt

More like sold and reported stolen.

[TheBlackAdder]

54. You've got that right! If they were properly contained, they probably wouldn't be stolen. nt

[tabby815]

55. I have a solution....

But I doubt enough people could agree to make it work.

1st. Each person should only be allowed to purchase one gun, and it should only be a handgun.
2nd. We love databases! Have one that gun sellers can check to see if a customer already owns a gun, if they do, no sale.
3rd. Gun owners should be required to store their guns in a safe way. Annual or semi annual, surprise inspections should be done to confirm this.
4th. If someone fails an inspection, they should be fined.
5th. If someones gun is stolen and then used in the commission of a crime, and that person had been fined for not storing their firearm safely, they should be charged as an accessory.

Of course, nothing will completely stop gun violence. But just because we can't stop it, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize it.

[TBF]

56. The handgun only rule will not work -

because so many folks are only into guns for hunting. If you grew up in the country you'd know this segment - much different than "pro-protection" folks in the suburbs.

I'd like to see some better controls as well - I don't even know what is required now but I would see it similar to a privilege like driving (privilege as opposed to right). Register, train, prove you can use it, re-register every few years like a driver's license. People can have 10 cars if they really love them - why not guns? We also test health in the sense that a driver must state if he needs glasses to drive. There could be a mental health component. I think there are many middle-of-the-road folks on this issue who would like to work with gun lobby to ensure guns are safely registered by the state. Not so much limiting in my view - just trying to keep them out of the hands of the wrong folks (just like you wouldn't want your 10-yr old barreling down the highway in your SUV).

[tabby815]

58. ...and this is why civilized dialog is productive! :-)

I see your point. I guess I wasn't thinking of these folks, because most of the hunter's I know ARE responsible gun owners who are not fanatics. Also, most of the guns that are stolen are handguns, for obvious reasons. So my reason for that part was simply the more you own, the more a criminal can steal. But even the hunter's who have other types of guns, could be "verified" in a way. When you fish, there are restrictions on which fish you can keep, and which you have to throw back. For hunter's, we could require them to "check in" their game. If you are someone who owns an artillery, but never register any game, there could be some kind of review. After all, if you aren't hunting game, how could you justify having an arsenal? If enough people in Congress were actually WILLING to put their heads together, a fair, responsible common ground could be found.

[gopiscrap]

57. Welcome to DU that would be a good start