CDZ The Gun Supply Chain: People who should not have been allowed near a gun, much less to buy one

320 Years of History

Gold Member
Nov 1, 2015
6,060
822
255
Washington, D.C.
Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.
A material percentage of the guns used in criminal activity are purchased legally, purchased by people who, prior to abusing their gun (gun right), demonstrated no justifiable reason why they should not have been denied the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Now one cannot in good conscience and sound mind argue in favor of less strict controls on the gun trade using the assertion that (1) a material share of gun buyers exhibit the responsibility required to deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, and (2) at the same time cite the fact most or many guns used nefariously are stolen. Those two facts, assuming they are both true, just don't fit together.

Donald Wayne Bricker, Jr., who pled guilty to shooting his ex-girlfriend, provides an archetypal example of one sort of individual whom I have in mind and who should never have been able to acquire so much as water gun, let alone one that could be used to morally shoot someone.
Donald Wayne Bricker Jr., [a convicted sex offender,] was denied bail after prosecutors told the judge that the gun that Bricker used to allegedly shoot and kill Mariam Folashade Adebayo in the parking lot of the Target store in Germantown had arrived in the mail to his home only that morning. [Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.]Feinstein told the court that Bricker had previously purchased 100 rounds of ammunition for the antique and practiced firing it at least once before going to meet Adebayo in the parking lot on Monday evening.

[Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.] Feinstein further outlined that violent nature of Bricker telling the court that the gun which Bricker is said to have used had arrived in the mail at his residence in Hagerstown on the morning of the day of the murder. She said that because Bricker, a convicted sex offender and could not legally purchase a firearm, use a loophole in the law to order a replica antique “black powder” gun online and had it delivered through the mail. The purchase of antique firearms and replicas of antique guns is not regulated.​


The above data makes clear that identifying effective and equitable means for dramatically reducing the availability of guns to folks who have nefarious intentions for their use is well worth pursuing. But just how does the supply chain for guns work? How does one interdict transactions and processes in that supply chain that enable current and would be nefarious gun users/abusers from getting hold of a firearm?

According to Dr. Phillip Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke University:

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals. That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years. The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion. In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.

There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included in that market. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault.

There are about 500,000 violent crimes committed with a gun each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year.

Actually no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions. That compares with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year.

All in the family

So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook’s friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.

Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders. Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority.

It appears that the extraordinarily intense investigation of the San Bernardino shootings has succeeded in identifying the individual in Farook’s social network who provided him with the assault weapons. The fact that Enrique Marquez is likely to pay a price may help discourage such perverse neighborliness in the future.​

Based on the above information, two things are quite clear to me:
  • The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
  • Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.
The task of identifying effective approaches to achieving those two objective rests not just with gun control devotees, but also with gun rights advocates. Folks on both sides of the matter, as Americans, have an obligation to collaborate to identify and implement solutions that reduce the quantity of gun killings and injuries. In light of that, what specific tactics does the gun lobby propose to accomplish the two objectives noted just above?
 
Here is what needs to happen:

1 - everybody needs a gun safe.

2 - everybody needs their own pistol concealed on their person at all times.

3 - everybody needs their own assault carbine locked in the trunk of their car.

That way your pistol and your carbine are always with you, all day long, until you come home at night.

And your gun safe protects your other guns while you are away.

That way nobody can rob or steal your guns.

As long as buyers can prove residency with a utility bill the interstate gun market should dry up except for the professional gun runners.

There is nothing you can do about professional gun running.

And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

Because the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a better gun who is also a better shot.
 
Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.
A material percentage of the guns used in criminal activity are purchased legally, purchased by people who, prior to abusing their gun (gun right), demonstrated no justifiable reason why they should not have been denied the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Now one cannot in good conscience and sound mind argue in favor of less strict controls on the gun trade using the assertion that (1) a material share of gun buyers exhibit the responsibility required to deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, and (2) at the same time cite the fact most or many guns used nefariously are stolen. Those two facts, assuming they are both true, just don't fit together.

Donald Wayne Bricker, Jr., who pled guilty to shooting his ex-girlfriend, provides an archetypal example of one sort of individual whom I have in mind and who should never have been able to acquire so much as water gun, let alone one that could be used to morally shoot someone.
Donald Wayne Bricker Jr., [a convicted sex offender,] was denied bail after prosecutors told the judge that the gun that Bricker used to allegedly shoot and kill Mariam Folashade Adebayo in the parking lot of the Target store in Germantown had arrived in the mail to his home only that morning. [Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.]Feinstein told the court that Bricker had previously purchased 100 rounds of ammunition for the antique and practiced firing it at least once before going to meet Adebayo in the parking lot on Monday evening.

[Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.] Feinstein further outlined that violent nature of Bricker telling the court that the gun which Bricker is said to have used had arrived in the mail at his residence in Hagerstown on the morning of the day of the murder. She said that because Bricker, a convicted sex offender and could not legally purchase a firearm, use a loophole in the law to order a replica antique “black powder” gun online and had it delivered through the mail. The purchase of antique firearms and replicas of antique guns is not regulated.​


The above data makes clear that identifying effective and equitable means for dramatically reducing the availability of guns to folks who have nefarious intentions for their use is well worth pursuing. But just how does the supply chain for guns work? How does one interdict transactions and processes in that supply chain that enable current and would be nefarious gun users/abusers from getting hold of a firearm?

According to Dr. Phillip Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke University:

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals. That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years. The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion. In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.

There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included in that market. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault.

There are about 500,000 violent crimes committed with a gun each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year.

Actually no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions. That compares with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year.

All in the family

So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook’s friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.

Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders. Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority.

It appears that the extraordinarily intense investigation of the San Bernardino shootings has succeeded in identifying the individual in Farook’s social network who provided him with the assault weapons. The fact that Enrique Marquez is likely to pay a price may help discourage such perverse neighborliness in the future.​

Based on the above information, two things are quite clear to me:
  • The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
  • Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.
The task of identifying effective approaches to achieving those two objective rests not just with gun control devotees, but also with gun rights advocates. Folks on both sides of the matter, as Americans, have an obligation to collaborate to identify and implement solutions that reduce the quantity of gun killings and injuries. In light of that, what specific tactics does the gun lobby propose to accomplish the two objectives noted just above?

do those charts also include the 2000 plus firearms obama lost to criminals and felons during

his dangerous fast n furious operation
 
Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Fewer and fewer Americans remain who are gullible and.or ignorant enough, any more, to believe this lie. Those of you on the wrong keep repeating it, along with other lies related to this issue, but all you're accomplishing, any more, is to show sane, decent, law-abiding American what lying scumbags those on your side truly are.

You like to hide behind talk of “reasonable regulations” against a right which the Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing; but you're not nearly as good as you think you are at hiding your true motives and intentions. In fact, you're getting to be almost as obvious as the Ku Klux Klan was when it successfully lobbied for the first gun control laws in this nation, specifically aimed at disarming black people; or Timothy Sullivan, the violent criminal gangster-turned-politician who crafted New York's Sullivan Act, specifically to facilitate the disarming of law-abiding citizens as well as rival criminal gangs, to give his own gang an advantage. Your motives today are no better, and not much different.


Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.

The real solution, of course, is to lock up hard, violent criminals, and keep them locked up, or else, in the worst cases, put them to death. Funny, but your side has generally tended to oppose this. Your side has historically tended to take the side of these criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. As with the above examples of the Ku Klux Klan, and Timothy Sullivan, I think it's pretty obvious what your true motive is behind seeking to violate the Second Amendment. You know damn well that the effect of any policies you advocate will be to disproportionately disarm law-abiding citizens, making us easier prey for the criminals that you favor.
 
Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.
A material percentage of the guns used in criminal activity are purchased legally, purchased by people who, prior to abusing their gun (gun right), demonstrated no justifiable reason why they should not have been denied the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Now one cannot in good conscience and sound mind argue in favor of less strict controls on the gun trade using the assertion that (1) a material share of gun buyers exhibit the responsibility required to deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, and (2) at the same time cite the fact most or many guns used nefariously are stolen. Those two facts, assuming they are both true, just don't fit together.

Donald Wayne Bricker, Jr., who pled guilty to shooting his ex-girlfriend, provides an archetypal example of one sort of individual whom I have in mind and who should never have been able to acquire so much as water gun, let alone one that could be used to morally shoot someone.
Donald Wayne Bricker Jr., [a convicted sex offender,] was denied bail after prosecutors told the judge that the gun that Bricker used to allegedly shoot and kill Mariam Folashade Adebayo in the parking lot of the Target store in Germantown had arrived in the mail to his home only that morning. [Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.]Feinstein told the court that Bricker had previously purchased 100 rounds of ammunition for the antique and practiced firing it at least once before going to meet Adebayo in the parking lot on Monday evening.

[Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.] Feinstein further outlined that violent nature of Bricker telling the court that the gun which Bricker is said to have used had arrived in the mail at his residence in Hagerstown on the morning of the day of the murder. She said that because Bricker, a convicted sex offender and could not legally purchase a firearm, use a loophole in the law to order a replica antique “black powder” gun online and had it delivered through the mail. The purchase of antique firearms and replicas of antique guns is not regulated.​


The above data makes clear that identifying effective and equitable means for dramatically reducing the availability of guns to folks who have nefarious intentions for their use is well worth pursuing. But just how does the supply chain for guns work? How does one interdict transactions and processes in that supply chain that enable current and would be nefarious gun users/abusers from getting hold of a firearm?

According to Dr. Phillip Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke University:

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals. That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years. The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion. In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.

There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included in that market. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault.

There are about 500,000 violent crimes committed with a gun each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year.

Actually no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions. That compares with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year.

All in the family

So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook’s friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.

Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders. Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority.

It appears that the extraordinarily intense investigation of the San Bernardino shootings has succeeded in identifying the individual in Farook’s social network who provided him with the assault weapons. The fact that Enrique Marquez is likely to pay a price may help discourage such perverse neighborliness in the future.​

Based on the above information, two things are quite clear to me:
  • The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
  • Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.
The task of identifying effective approaches to achieving those two objective rests not just with gun control devotees, but also with gun rights advocates. Folks on both sides of the matter, as Americans, have an obligation to collaborate to identify and implement solutions that reduce the quantity of gun killings and injuries. In light of that, what specific tactics does the gun lobby propose to accomplish the two objectives noted just above?


1). When someone commits,a crime with a gun you arrest them....

2) when a felon is caught buying, owning or carrying a gun....you arrest them....

3) increase sentences for gun crime...Japan has a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...it has stopped the current yakuza violence from becoming a gun and grenade war.......

These three measures can already be done with existing laws and have the added benefit of actually targeting the people who commit crim s with guns while leaving normal, law abiding gun owners alone......,

Gun registration does nothing....

Licensing gun owners does nothing....

Universal background checks are avoided the same way current background checks are avoided......

You could add mental health aspects to the current background check system...but first you would have to keep them from being exploited by anti gunners to attack la abiding gun owners.......

And there you have it....the most effective ways to stop gun crime......
 
Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Fewer and fewer Americans remain who are gullible and.or ignorant enough, any more, to believe this lie. Those of you on the wrong keep repeating it, along with other lies related to this issue, but all you're accomplishing, any more, is to show sane, decent, law-abiding American what lying scumbags those on your side truly are.

You like to hide behind talk of “reasonable regulations” against a right which the Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing; but you're not nearly as good as you think you are at hiding your true motives and intentions. In fact, you're getting to be almost as obvious as the Ku Klux Klan was when it successfully lobbied for the first gun control laws in this nation, specifically aimed at disarming black people; or Timothy Sullivan, the violent criminal gangster-turned-politician who crafted New York's Sullivan Act, specifically to facilitate the disarming of law-abiding citizens as well as rival criminal gangs, to give his own gang an advantage. Your motives today are no better, and not much different.


Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.

The real solution, of course,is to lock up hard, violent criminals, and keep them locked up, or else, in the worst cases, put them to death. Funny, but your side has generally tended to oppose this. Your side has historically tended to take the side of these criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. As with the above examples of the Ku Klux Klan,and Timothy Sullivan, I think it's pretty obvious what your true motive is behind seeking to violate the Second Amendment. You know damn well that the effect of any policies you advocate will be to disproportionately disarm law-abiding citizens, making us easier prey for the criminals that you favor.


Yes....actual research shows that a tiny number of thugs are doing almost all of the shooting......and they are already legally prohibited from using guns....

The gun accident ploy...here the anti gunners like 320 pretend that gun accidents are their concern...


357,000,000 gun in private hands. 586 fatal gun accidents in 2015.....

But they can use gun accidents to fool the uninformed....
 
Yes....actual research shows that a tiny number of thugs are doing almost all of the shooting......and they are already legally prohibited from using guns....

The solution is not for government to take any action that impairs in any way the Constitutional rights of any free American. The solution is long, hard sentences, for those convicted of serious violent crimes, to keep them out of the free population.

If we dealt appropriately with serious violent criminals, then there'd be no reason to even consider anything less then the strictest obedience by government to the Second Amendment. Not that there is, ever has been, or ever will be, any valid excuse for it anyway.
 
Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.
A material percentage of the guns used in criminal activity are purchased legally, purchased by people who, prior to abusing their gun (gun right), demonstrated no justifiable reason why they should not have been denied the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Now one cannot in good conscience and sound mind argue in favor of less strict controls on the gun trade using the assertion that (1) a material share of gun buyers exhibit the responsibility required to deserve to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, and (2) at the same time cite the fact most or many guns used nefariously are stolen. Those two facts, assuming they are both true, just don't fit together.

Donald Wayne Bricker, Jr., who pled guilty to shooting his ex-girlfriend, provides an archetypal example of one sort of individual whom I have in mind and who should never have been able to acquire so much as water gun, let alone one that could be used to morally shoot someone.
Donald Wayne Bricker Jr., [a convicted sex offender,] was denied bail after prosecutors told the judge that the gun that Bricker used to allegedly shoot and kill Mariam Folashade Adebayo in the parking lot of the Target store in Germantown had arrived in the mail to his home only that morning. [Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.]Feinstein told the court that Bricker had previously purchased 100 rounds of ammunition for the antique and practiced firing it at least once before going to meet Adebayo in the parking lot on Monday evening.

[Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Deborah W.] Feinstein further outlined that violent nature of Bricker telling the court that the gun which Bricker is said to have used had arrived in the mail at his residence in Hagerstown on the morning of the day of the murder. She said that because Bricker, a convicted sex offender and could not legally purchase a firearm, use a loophole in the law to order a replica antique “black powder” gun online and had it delivered through the mail. The purchase of antique firearms and replicas of antique guns is not regulated.​


The above data makes clear that identifying effective and equitable means for dramatically reducing the availability of guns to folks who have nefarious intentions for their use is well worth pursuing. But just how does the supply chain for guns work? How does one interdict transactions and processes in that supply chain that enable current and would be nefarious gun users/abusers from getting hold of a firearm?

According to Dr. Phillip Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke University:

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals. That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years. The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion. In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.

There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included in that market. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault.

There are about 500,000 violent crimes committed with a gun each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year.

Actually no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions. That compares with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year.

All in the family

So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook’s friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.

Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders. Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority.

It appears that the extraordinarily intense investigation of the San Bernardino shootings has succeeded in identifying the individual in Farook’s social network who provided him with the assault weapons. The fact that Enrique Marquez is likely to pay a price may help discourage such perverse neighborliness in the future.​

Based on the above information, two things are quite clear to me:
  • The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
  • Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.
The task of identifying effective approaches to achieving those two objective rests not just with gun control devotees, but also with gun rights advocates. Folks on both sides of the matter, as Americans, have an obligation to collaborate to identify and implement solutions that reduce the quantity of gun killings and injuries. In light of that, what specific tactics does the gun lobby propose to accomplish the two objectives noted just above?

do those charts also include the 2000 plus firearms obama lost to criminals and felons during

his dangerous fast n furious operation

Click on the links/images and you'll find out what they include and do not include.
 
Here is what needs to happen:

1 - everybody needs a gun safe.

2 - everybody needs their own pistol concealed on their person at all times.

3 - everybody needs their own assault carbine locked in the trunk of their car.

That way your pistol and your carbine are always with you, all day long, until you come home at night.

And your gun safe protects your other guns while you are away.

That way nobody can rob or steal your guns.

As long as buyers can prove residency with a utility bill the interstate gun market should dry up except for the professional gun runners.

There is nothing you can do about professional gun running.

And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

Because the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a better gun who is also a better shot.

Unless of course someone breaks into or steals your car and finds your guns and ammo.

I never leave a gun in a car
 
The solution is long, hard sentences, for those convicted of serious violent crimes, to keep them out of the free population.

That is a reactive not proactive measure. It does nothing to prevent one's being shot or to mitigate the severity of one's wounds after having been shot.

All laws are reactive. The cops are reactive. The only one who can be proactive in their own defense is you. The only thing that is going to make your weapons safer is you.
 
Here is what needs to happen:

1 - everybody needs a gun safe.

2 - everybody needs their own pistol concealed on their person at all times.

3 - everybody needs their own assault carbine locked in the trunk of their car.

That way your pistol and your carbine are always with you, all day long, until you come home at night.

And your gun safe protects your other guns while you are away.

That way nobody can rob or steal your guns.

As long as buyers can prove residency with a utility bill the interstate gun market should dry up except for the professional gun runners.

There is nothing you can do about professional gun running.

And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

Because the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a better gun who is also a better shot.

Unless of course someone breaks into or steals your car and finds your guns and ammo.

I never leave a gun in a car
It is virtually unlikely that anyone would break into your trunk during broad daylight or the evening hours.

When you get home definitely move the carbine to your bedside and put the pistol under your pillow.
 
And does that include the guns that are coming through China via the deep water port that Clinton turned over to them in Long Beach in exchange for campaign contributions in the 90's? I would rather take my chance coming across someone having a bad day than I would living in a country where only "da gubermint" has guns. It didn't work out all that well for the Jews in Germany, as I recall. This corporate "gubermint" we currently are under is a de-facto "successor to contract" entity that that is the IMF that took USA.INC into receivership in 1950. If the people allow themselves to be disarmed, they might as well dig their own grave and lay down in it. Every communist nation has disarmed the public and then eradicated the "undesirables" because they are a potential threat. It heartens me that every time that there is an obvious fake and staged media event like Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Orlando, etc, etc? People buy more guns and they buy more ammo....to those that are awake? I salute you...to those that are asleep or are "gubermint" trolls lamely attempting to debunk someone like me that is your intellectual better???Here's to you......:fu:
The Chinese are definitely not gunrunners.
 
Here is what needs to happen:

1 - everybody needs a gun safe.

2 - everybody needs their own pistol concealed on their person at all times.

3 - everybody needs their own assault carbine locked in the trunk of their car.

That way your pistol and your carbine are always with you, all day long, until you come home at night.

And your gun safe protects your other guns while you are away.

That way nobody can rob or steal your guns.

As long as buyers can prove residency with a utility bill the interstate gun market should dry up except for the professional gun runners.

There is nothing you can do about professional gun running.

And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

Because the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a better gun who is also a better shot.

Unless of course someone breaks into or steals your car and finds your guns and ammo.

I never leave a gun in a car
It is virtually unlikely that anyone would break into your trunk during broad daylight or the evening hours.

When you get home definitely move the carbine to your bedside and put the pistol under your pillow.

I've had a car stolen in broad daylight. I have also worked many night jobs and had my car broken into while at work.

IMO leaving a gun is a car is less safe than leaving it properly secured at home
 
And does that include the guns that are coming through China via the deep water port that Clinton turned over to them in Long Beach in exchange for campaign contributions in the 90's? I would rather take my chance coming across someone having a bad day than I would living in a country where only "da gubermint" has guns. It didn't work out all that well for the Jews in Germany, as I recall. This corporate "gubermint" we currently are under is a de-facto "successor to contract" entity that that is the IMF that took USA.INC into receivership in 1950. If the people allow themselves to be disarmed, they might as well dig their own grave and lay down in it. Every communist nation has disarmed the public and then eradicated the "undesirables" because they are a potential threat. It heartens me that every time that there is an obvious fake and staged media event like Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Orlando, etc, etc? People buy more guns and they buy more ammo....to those that are awake? I salute you...to those that are asleep or are "gubermint" trolls lamely attempting to debunk someone like me that is your intellectual better???Here's to you......:fu:
The Chinese are definitely not gunrunners.



XXXX -- NO FLAME in the CDZ ---- Dale Smith

Former State Sen. Leland Yee pleads guilty, admits to gun-running, extortion, bribes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And does that include the guns that are coming through China via the deep water port that Clinton turned over to them in Long Beach in exchange for campaign contributions in the 90's? I would rather take my chance coming across someone having a bad day than I would living in a country where only "da gubermint" has guns. It didn't work out all that well for the Jews in Germany, as I recall. This corporate "gubermint" we currently are under is a de-facto "successor to contract" entity that that is the IMF that took USA.INC into receivership in 1950. If the people allow themselves to be disarmed, they might as well dig their own grave and lay down in it. Every communist nation has disarmed the public and then eradicated the "undesirables" because they are a potential threat. It heartens me that every time that there is an obvious fake and staged media event like Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Orlando, etc, etc? People buy more guns and they buy more ammo....to those that are awake? I salute you...to those that are asleep or are "gubermint" trolls lamely attempting to debunk someone like me that is your intellectual better???Here's to you......:fu:
The Chinese are definitely not gunrunners.



Have a heapin' helpin' of crow.....dumb fuck......

Former State Sen. Leland Yee pleads guilty, admits to gun-running, extortion, bribes
Ok I stand corrected.
 
Here is what needs to happen:

1 - everybody needs a gun safe.

2 - everybody needs their own pistol concealed on their person at all times.

3 - everybody needs their own assault carbine locked in the trunk of their car.

That way your pistol and your carbine are always with you, all day long, until you come home at night.

And your gun safe protects your other guns while you are away.

That way nobody can rob or steal your guns.

As long as buyers can prove residency with a utility bill the interstate gun market should dry up except for the professional gun runners.

There is nothing you can do about professional gun running.

And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

Because the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a better gun who is also a better shot.

Unless of course someone breaks into or steals your car and finds your guns and ammo.

I never leave a gun in a car
It is virtually unlikely that anyone would break into your trunk during broad daylight or the evening hours.

When you get home definitely move the carbine to your bedside and put the pistol under your pillow.

I've had a car stolen in broad daylight. I have also worked many night jobs and had my car broken into while at work.

IMO leaving a gun is a car is less safe than leaving it properly secured at home
Sure I agree.

But leaving your combat carbine safe at home in your safe does not help you when you need to get at your carbine rather than defend yourself with only a pistol against a rifle.

You hopefully saw what happened to the Dallas cop who tried that against the Dallas cop killer.

The poor cop did not stand a chance. It was sickeningly sad.
 
The solution is long, hard sentences, for those convicted of serious violent crimes, to keep them out of the free population.

That is a reactive not proactive measure. It does nothing to prevent one's being shot or to mitigate the severity of one's wounds after having been shot.

Neither does gun control. Unless it's only criminals who you care about stopping from being shot. But then, as I said before, you've made it quite clear enough whose side you are on, and it is certainly not the side of decent, law-abiding Americans. If you were on our side, then you wouldn't be so intent on rendering us unarmed and defenseless, to make us easier prey for the criminals whose side you are really on.
 
Here is what needs to happen:

1 - everybody needs a gun safe.

2 - everybody needs their own pistol concealed on their person at all times.

3 - everybody needs their own assault carbine locked in the trunk of their car.

That way your pistol and your carbine are always with you, all day long, until you come home at night.

And your gun safe protects your other guns while you are away.

That way nobody can rob or steal your guns.

As long as buyers can prove residency with a utility bill the interstate gun market should dry up except for the professional gun runners.

There is nothing you can do about professional gun running.

And if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

Because the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a better gun who is also a better shot.

Unless of course someone breaks into or steals your car and finds your guns and ammo.

I never leave a gun in a car
It is virtually unlikely that anyone would break into your trunk during broad daylight or the evening hours.

When you get home definitely move the carbine to your bedside and put the pistol under your pillow.

I've had a car stolen in broad daylight. I have also worked many night jobs and had my car broken into while at work.

IMO leaving a gun is a car is less safe than leaving it properly secured at home
Sure I agree.

But leaving your combat carbine safe at home in your safe does not help you when you need to get at your carbine rather than defend yourself with only a pistol against a rifle.

You hopefully saw what happened to the Dallas cop who tried that against the Dallas cop killer.

The poor cop did not stand a chance. It was sickeningly sad.

In all reality if you are caught in an active sniper situation you won't be able to get to your car to get a rifle.
 
The solution is long, hard sentences, for those convicted of serious violent crimes, to keep them out of the free population.

That is a reactive not proactive measure. It does nothing to prevent one's being shot or to mitigate the severity of one's wounds after having been shot.

All laws are reactive. The cops are reactive. The only one who can be proactive in their own defense is you. The only thing that is going to make your weapons safer is you.

Red:
If you truly believe that, you have some reading to do.
 

Forum List

Back
Top