CDZ Where Do Guns Used In Crimes Come From?

[2aguy]

there are a lot floating around out there. we need to be doing more buy-back programs

Indeed


thousands of criminals are waiting for a local buy back program to get rid of their illegal firearms.

It's not all about the criminals. a legitimate gun owner may take advantage - someone that might otherwise have sold the gun to someone less reputable.

and yes, even criminals may take advantage. the point is if we can lower the number and availability of guns in problem areas qe can lower gun crime

And if someone is knowingly selling to a felon we can arrest them.....just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years...problem solved....that is how they do it in Japan...

 

[2aguy]

Try to buy a gun on the internet and see what happens and how that goes. Educate yourself.

It's easier to buy a gun on the Internet than it is to take out a book from the Library...or something

I think they said it was easier to buy a gun than to buy a Happy Meal.....was that it?

 

[2aguy]

there are a lot floating around out there. we need to be doing more buy-back programs

Indeed


thousands of criminals are waiting for a local buy back program to get rid of their illegal firearms.

It's not all about the criminals. a legitimate gun owner may take advantage - someone that might otherwise have sold the gun to someone less reputable.

and yes, even criminals may take advantage. the point is if we can lower the number and availability of guns in problem areas qe can lower gun crime

You missed the sarcasm.

Legitimate firearm owners turn in firearms they no longer want around the house.

Criminals, rarely turn them in

and that's ok. it still reduces the number of guns in problem areas

Actually, no. I have seen reports that say they are a waste of time and resources......and produce nothing......

 

[2aguy]

• In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.
• Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
  
• Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts -- One section of this analysis indicates that the legality of guns may not be a relevant factor.
  
• FFL NEWSLETTER
  
• Reducing Illegal Firearms Trafficking
  • As of July 1999, the National Crime Information Center database listed 2,341,023 stolen firearms (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999)
• TRACING THE GUNS: THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL GUNS ON VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO
  • The largest out-of-state sources of Chicago’s illegal guns were Indiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, which supplied 19 percent, 6.7 percent, and 3.6 percent of these crime guns, respectively. None of these states have laws that require background checks for purchasers who buy firearms at gun shows or on the Internet.
    
  • Although the majority of Chicago’s crime guns come from the other 49 states combined, between 2009 and 2013, just four local dealers supplied nearly 20 percent of the guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes. These stores – Chucks (Riverdale, IL), Midwest Sporting Goods (Lyons, IL), Shore Galleries (Lincolnwood, IL), and Westforth Sports, Inc. (Gary, IN)— are all within a short drive of Chicago and are the source of thousands of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago. By contrast, during that same time period, the average number of guns traced back to all other gun stores was three.
    
    Between 2009 and 2013, Midwest Gun in Lyons, Illinois, sold 659 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 333 (approximately 51 percent) of those firearms were recovered within three years of the original purchase at Midwest Gun. Chucks Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, sold 1,516 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 529 (approximately 35 percent) of these guns were recovered within three years of purchase. Chucks alone accounts for a whopping eight percent of the total number of guns that were recovered and traced to crimes in Chicago in the last five years.

Some thoughts:

• People commonly note that gun sales/ownership have increased and gun crime has decreased. I have yet to see any of them establish the veracity of there being a causal link between those two observations. I can see as well as the next person that both events seem like they should be more than just circumstantially related, but I have yet to see anything showing the relationship is anything more than circumstantial.
• People commonly note that "such and such" gun regulation would not have stopped "this or that" murderer/shooter, inferring, in turn, that "no" shooter/murderer would ever be stopped by that regulation. What they never bother to point out is how many shooters that very same regulation would have stopped, and, in turn, how many people would be alive/uninjured today were the regulation under discussion implemented. They posit the quantity of lives saved and shooters deterred is zero, but they never produce anything showing that to be so. In contrast, consider Christopher Pittman. Were guns illegal and the child's parents law abiding in accordance with that law, just where would he have come by a shotgun? Just how does one argue that the 256 minor who shot someone in 2015 would have done so were the law abiding adults around them to not own guns?
  
  
  
  Can one say that the adults in those children's lives were stupid, insouciant, "whatever?" Sure, but that just indicates they had no business with a gun any more than did the children whom they allowed to get hold of them. It's a responsible adult's burden/duty to secure their deadly weapons, guns among others, so that children don't get hold of them. So tell me, just how, short of enacting gun possession prohibitions, are we to guard against the glibness of otherwise law abiding adults? After a child around them has injured or killed another person with the adult's gun, it's a bit too late, isn't it?
  
  
• People commonly state that making guns harder to get or in some cases outright illegal to possess won't stop shooters because the shooters will merely buy guns illegally. What they fail to address is that the greater the quantity there is of legal guns available and/or in circulation, the greater quantity of guns that exist to be illegally "procured" from legal owners/sellers.

What one observes then is that repeatedly, while gun rights advocates have some sort of response to all manners of things, they routinely do not directly address those things that actually matter in the discussion of any given proposal for abating or curtailing gun-related deaths/violence. When all else fails, they revert to a Constitutional and SCOTUS line of argument. Even there, however, they again do not address the fact that neither the Founders nor any SCOTUS jurist aimed to create a situation in which one's right to bear arms contributes to citizens' involuntary injury and death.

People commonly note that gun sales/ownership have increased and gun crime has decreased. I have yet to see any of them establish the veracity of there being a causal link between those two observations. I can see as well as the next person that both events seem like they should be more than just circumstantially related, but I have yet to see anything showing the relationship is anything more than circumstantial.

At the core of this point.....is the fact that more Americans owning and carrying guns legally did not increase the gun crime rate or the gun murder rate...that is a fact. That destroys the entire premise of the gun control argument that more guns in the hands of Americans will lead to more gun murder and more gun crime....

That is the basis of the entire anti gun movement...and it is completely false.....

and there are studies that show that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens lowers the crime rate.....and for sure it does so for the concealed carry permit holder who is the victim of a crime...

 

[2aguy]

• In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.
• Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
  
• Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts -- One section of this analysis indicates that the legality of guns may not be a relevant factor.
  
• FFL NEWSLETTER
  
• Reducing Illegal Firearms Trafficking
  • As of July 1999, the National Crime Information Center database listed 2,341,023 stolen firearms (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999)
• TRACING THE GUNS: THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL GUNS ON VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO
  • The largest out-of-state sources of Chicago’s illegal guns were Indiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, which supplied 19 percent, 6.7 percent, and 3.6 percent of these crime guns, respectively. None of these states have laws that require background checks for purchasers who buy firearms at gun shows or on the Internet.
    
  • Although the majority of Chicago’s crime guns come from the other 49 states combined, between 2009 and 2013, just four local dealers supplied nearly 20 percent of the guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes. These stores – Chucks (Riverdale, IL), Midwest Sporting Goods (Lyons, IL), Shore Galleries (Lincolnwood, IL), and Westforth Sports, Inc. (Gary, IN)— are all within a short drive of Chicago and are the source of thousands of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago. By contrast, during that same time period, the average number of guns traced back to all other gun stores was three.
    
    Between 2009 and 2013, Midwest Gun in Lyons, Illinois, sold 659 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 333 (approximately 51 percent) of those firearms were recovered within three years of the original purchase at Midwest Gun. Chucks Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, sold 1,516 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 529 (approximately 35 percent) of these guns were recovered within three years of purchase. Chucks alone accounts for a whopping eight percent of the total number of guns that were recovered and traced to crimes in Chicago in the last five years.

Some thoughts:

• People commonly note that gun sales/ownership have increased and gun crime has decreased. I have yet to see any of them establish the veracity of there being a causal link between those two observations. I can see as well as the next person that both events seem like they should be more than just circumstantially related, but I have yet to see anything showing the relationship is anything more than circumstantial.
• People commonly note that "such and such" gun regulation would not have stopped "this or that" murderer/shooter, inferring, in turn, that "no" shooter/murderer would ever be stopped by that regulation. What they never bother to point out is how many shooters that very same regulation would have stopped, and, in turn, how many people would be alive/uninjured today were the regulation under discussion implemented. They posit the quantity of lives saved and shooters deterred is zero, but they never produce anything showing that to be so. In contrast, consider Christopher Pittman. Were guns illegal and the child's parents law abiding in accordance with that law, just where would he have come by a shotgun? Just how does one argue that the 256 minor who shot someone in 2015 would have done so were the law abiding adults around them to not own guns?
  
  
  
  Can one say that the adults in those children's lives were stupid, insouciant, "whatever?" Sure, but that just indicates they had no business with a gun any more than did the children whom they allowed to get hold of them. It's a responsible adult's burden/duty to secure their deadly weapons, guns among others, so that children don't get hold of them. So tell me, just how, short of enacting gun possession prohibitions, are we to guard against the glibness of otherwise law abiding adults? After a child around them has injured or killed another person with the adult's gun, it's a bit too late, isn't it?
  
  
• People commonly state that making guns harder to get or in some cases outright illegal to possess won't stop shooters because the shooters will merely buy guns illegally. What they fail to address is that the greater the quantity there is of legal guns available and/or in circulation, the greater quantity of guns that exist to be illegally "procured" from legal owners/sellers.

What one observes then is that repeatedly, while gun rights advocates have some sort of response to all manners of things, they routinely do not directly address those things that actually matter in the discussion of any given proposal for abating or curtailing gun-related deaths/violence. When all else fails, they revert to a Constitutional and SCOTUS line of argument. Even there, however, they again do not address the fact that neither the Founders nor any SCOTUS jurist aimed to create a situation in which one's right to bear arms contributes to citizens' involuntary injury and death.

People commonly note that "such and such" gun regulation would not have stopped "this or that" murderer/shooter, inferring, in turn, that "no" shooter/murderer would ever be stopped by that regulation. What they never bother to point out is how many shooters that very same regulation would have stopped, and, in turn, how many people would be alive/uninjured today were the regulation under discussion implemented. They posit the quantity of lives saved and shooters deterred is zero, but they never produce anything showing that to be so. In contrast, consider Christopher Pittman. Were guns illegal and the child's parents law abiding in accordance with that law, just where would he have come by a shotgun? Just how does one argue that the 256 minor who shot someone in 2015 would have done so were the law abiding adults around them to not own guns?

Because Germany showed us how........the German mass shooter in Munich was underage....making him ineligible for that gun...that shooter had also recieved psychiatric treatment...so he would not have passed the extreme background check that the Germans require for gun ownership......semi auto pistols, the kind he used....are banned for civilians.......

And he ordered a gun off the Dark WEb and murdered 9 people....

The same thing happened in Britain......but the shooter was stopped because he posted his intent to use the gun he got off of the Dark Web to shoot up his former University on social media and he was caught...he said ordering the gun and the ammunition was as easy as ordering chocolates.....I have linked to this story several times in past threads...


And with 357,000,000 guns in private hands...are you calling for denying normal, law abiding people their 2nd Amendment rights on the chance that 256 minors will shoot someone? Really....is that your position...considering that minors behind the wheel of cars kill a large part of 33,000 people who die in car accidents....?

 

[2aguy]

• In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.
• Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
  
• Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts -- One section of this analysis indicates that the legality of guns may not be a relevant factor.
  
• FFL NEWSLETTER
  
• Reducing Illegal Firearms Trafficking
  • As of July 1999, the National Crime Information Center database listed 2,341,023 stolen firearms (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999)
• TRACING THE GUNS: THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL GUNS ON VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO
  • The largest out-of-state sources of Chicago’s illegal guns were Indiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, which supplied 19 percent, 6.7 percent, and 3.6 percent of these crime guns, respectively. None of these states have laws that require background checks for purchasers who buy firearms at gun shows or on the Internet.
    
  • Although the majority of Chicago’s crime guns come from the other 49 states combined, between 2009 and 2013, just four local dealers supplied nearly 20 percent of the guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes. These stores – Chucks (Riverdale, IL), Midwest Sporting Goods (Lyons, IL), Shore Galleries (Lincolnwood, IL), and Westforth Sports, Inc. (Gary, IN)— are all within a short drive of Chicago and are the source of thousands of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago. By contrast, during that same time period, the average number of guns traced back to all other gun stores was three.
    
    Between 2009 and 2013, Midwest Gun in Lyons, Illinois, sold 659 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 333 (approximately 51 percent) of those firearms were recovered within three years of the original purchase at Midwest Gun. Chucks Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, sold 1,516 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 529 (approximately 35 percent) of these guns were recovered within three years of purchase. Chucks alone accounts for a whopping eight percent of the total number of guns that were recovered and traced to crimes in Chicago in the last five years.

Some thoughts:

• People commonly note that gun sales/ownership have increased and gun crime has decreased. I have yet to see any of them establish the veracity of there being a causal link between those two observations. I can see as well as the next person that both events seem like they should be more than just circumstantially related, but I have yet to see anything showing the relationship is anything more than circumstantial.
• People commonly note that "such and such" gun regulation would not have stopped "this or that" murderer/shooter, inferring, in turn, that "no" shooter/murderer would ever be stopped by that regulation. What they never bother to point out is how many shooters that very same regulation would have stopped, and, in turn, how many people would be alive/uninjured today were the regulation under discussion implemented. They posit the quantity of lives saved and shooters deterred is zero, but they never produce anything showing that to be so. In contrast, consider Christopher Pittman. Were guns illegal and the child's parents law abiding in accordance with that law, just where would he have come by a shotgun? Just how does one argue that the 256 minor who shot someone in 2015 would have done so were the law abiding adults around them to not own guns?
  
  
  
  Can one say that the adults in those children's lives were stupid, insouciant, "whatever?" Sure, but that just indicates they had no business with a gun any more than did the children whom they allowed to get hold of them. It's a responsible adult's burden/duty to secure their deadly weapons, guns among others, so that children don't get hold of them. So tell me, just how, short of enacting gun possession prohibitions, are we to guard against the glibness of otherwise law abiding adults? After a child around them has injured or killed another person with the adult's gun, it's a bit too late, isn't it?
  
  
• People commonly state that making guns harder to get or in some cases outright illegal to possess won't stop shooters because the shooters will merely buy guns illegally. What they fail to address is that the greater the quantity there is of legal guns available and/or in circulation, the greater quantity of guns that exist to be illegally "procured" from legal owners/sellers.

What one observes then is that repeatedly, while gun rights advocates have some sort of response to all manners of things, they routinely do not directly address those things that actually matter in the discussion of any given proposal for abating or curtailing gun-related deaths/violence. When all else fails, they revert to a Constitutional and SCOTUS line of argument. Even there, however, they again do not address the fact that neither the Founders nor any SCOTUS jurist aimed to create a situation in which one's right to bear arms contributes to citizens' involuntary injury and death.

What one observes then is that repeatedly, while gun rights advocates have some sort of response to all manners of things, they routinely do not directly address those things that actually matter in the discussion of any given proposal for abating or curtailing gun-related deaths/violence. When all else fails, they revert to a Constitutional and SCOTUS line of argument. Even there, however, they again do not address the fact that neither the Founders nor any SCOTUS jurist aimed to create a situation in which one's right to bear arms contributes to citizens' involuntary injury and death.

We address those things every time you guys bring them up........

357,000,000 guns in private hands.

1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop violent crime and save lives, including many mass public shootings....

there were 8,124 gun murders in 2014.......90% of them by people already legally incapable of buying, owning or carrying guns.......

We have laws that allow us to lock up gun criminals and felons caught with illegal guns...we have all the laws we need to deal with the problem....

What you guys fail to address is the truth...that guns are not the issue....how we deal with violent criminals who are constantly released back onto our streets, even after committing crimes with guns...that is what needs to be dealt with....

And as we point out over and over.........More Americans now own guns...and the gun murder rate went down, not up......so guns do not cause gun murder or violent crime...that is a fact....

So when you target gun owners who do not commit any crime with their guns......you are the ones failing to address the real issue......

The numbers do not support anything you believe.

 

[2aguy]

• In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.
• Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
  
• Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts -- One section of this analysis indicates that the legality of guns may not be a relevant factor.
  
• FFL NEWSLETTER
  
• Reducing Illegal Firearms Trafficking
  • As of July 1999, the National Crime Information Center database listed 2,341,023 stolen firearms (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999)
• TRACING THE GUNS: THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL GUNS ON VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO
  • The largest out-of-state sources of Chicago’s illegal guns were Indiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, which supplied 19 percent, 6.7 percent, and 3.6 percent of these crime guns, respectively. None of these states have laws that require background checks for purchasers who buy firearms at gun shows or on the Internet.
    
  • Although the majority of Chicago’s crime guns come from the other 49 states combined, between 2009 and 2013, just four local dealers supplied nearly 20 percent of the guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes. These stores – Chucks (Riverdale, IL), Midwest Sporting Goods (Lyons, IL), Shore Galleries (Lincolnwood, IL), and Westforth Sports, Inc. (Gary, IN)— are all within a short drive of Chicago and are the source of thousands of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago. By contrast, during that same time period, the average number of guns traced back to all other gun stores was three.
    
    Between 2009 and 2013, Midwest Gun in Lyons, Illinois, sold 659 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 333 (approximately 51 percent) of those firearms were recovered within three years of the original purchase at Midwest Gun. Chucks Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, sold 1,516 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 529 (approximately 35 percent) of these guns were recovered within three years of purchase. Chucks alone accounts for a whopping eight percent of the total number of guns that were recovered and traced to crimes in Chicago in the last five years.

Some thoughts:

• People commonly note that gun sales/ownership have increased and gun crime has decreased. I have yet to see any of them establish the veracity of there being a causal link between those two observations. I can see as well as the next person that both events seem like they should be more than just circumstantially related, but I have yet to see anything showing the relationship is anything more than circumstantial.
• People commonly note that "such and such" gun regulation would not have stopped "this or that" murderer/shooter, inferring, in turn, that "no" shooter/murderer would ever be stopped by that regulation. What they never bother to point out is how many shooters that very same regulation would have stopped, and, in turn, how many people would be alive/uninjured today were the regulation under discussion implemented. They posit the quantity of lives saved and shooters deterred is zero, but they never produce anything showing that to be so. In contrast, consider Christopher Pittman. Were guns illegal and the child's parents law abiding in accordance with that law, just where would he have come by a shotgun? Just how does one argue that the 256 minor who shot someone in 2015 would have done so were the law abiding adults around them to not own guns?
  
  
  
  Can one say that the adults in those children's lives were stupid, insouciant, "whatever?" Sure, but that just indicates they had no business with a gun any more than did the children whom they allowed to get hold of them. It's a responsible adult's burden/duty to secure their deadly weapons, guns among others, so that children don't get hold of them. So tell me, just how, short of enacting gun possession prohibitions, are we to guard against the glibness of otherwise law abiding adults? After a child around them has injured or killed another person with the adult's gun, it's a bit too late, isn't it?
  
  
• People commonly state that making guns harder to get or in some cases outright illegal to possess won't stop shooters because the shooters will merely buy guns illegally. What they fail to address is that the greater the quantity there is of legal guns available and/or in circulation, the greater quantity of guns that exist to be illegally "procured" from legal owners/sellers.

What one observes then is that repeatedly, while gun rights advocates have some sort of response to all manners of things, they routinely do not directly address those things that actually matter in the discussion of any given proposal for abating or curtailing gun-related deaths/violence. When all else fails, they revert to a Constitutional and SCOTUS line of argument. Even there, however, they again do not address the fact that neither the Founders nor any SCOTUS jurist aimed to create a situation in which one's right to bear arms contributes to citizens' involuntary injury and death.

Sorry....the Memeit that you posted comes from an anti gun activist group, Everytown for Gun Safety a group paid for by Michael Bloomberg, and anti gun activist who funds anti gun activity...including fake research.....

 

[2aguy]

And another point...from the CDC.....as more Americans have purchased guns...our gun accident rates have gone down, not up....

How Many Accidental Gun Injuries per Year? - The Volokh Conspiracy

A guest on the HuffPost Live discussion noted in the post below mentioned that guns injure 5,000 people per year (presumably in the U.S.). Actually, according to CDC’s WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S., though only about 600 people killed in such shootings. As always, keep in mind the limitations of this data, including that some suicides and suicide attempts could be misclassified as accidents.

And with over 357,000,000 guns in private hands......even 19,000 non fatal gun accidents.....and 586 fatal gun accidents in 2015 do not merit denying gun ownership to those gun owners.......

Cars kill 33,000 people a year...and injure close to 2 million a year.......

A little perspective on all the hand wringing......

And guns stop violent crime and save lives 1,500,000 times a year....according to the Department of Justice....

 

[320 Years of History]

Apparently they're among the top items stolen in home break-ins.

Drugs, Guns, Money and lawyers... In that order...

Just how does one break into a home and steal a lawyer (or lawyers)? Moreover, what is the point of doing so and stealing a lawyer? LOL

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well 320 if I may be so familiar as to call you that, I was going for a touch of humor with my response. I took artistic liberty to rearrange the words and even added one, but what the hell it is just the interweb after all...

 

[320 Years of History]

• In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.
• Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
  
• Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts -- One section of this analysis indicates that the legality of guns may not be a relevant factor.
  
• FFL NEWSLETTER
  
• Reducing Illegal Firearms Trafficking
  • As of July 1999, the National Crime Information Center database listed 2,341,023 stolen firearms (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999)
• TRACING THE GUNS: THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL GUNS ON VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO
  • The largest out-of-state sources of Chicago’s illegal guns were Indiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, which supplied 19 percent, 6.7 percent, and 3.6 percent of these crime guns, respectively. None of these states have laws that require background checks for purchasers who buy firearms at gun shows or on the Internet.
    
  • Although the majority of Chicago’s crime guns come from the other 49 states combined, between 2009 and 2013, just four local dealers supplied nearly 20 percent of the guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes. These stores – Chucks (Riverdale, IL), Midwest Sporting Goods (Lyons, IL), Shore Galleries (Lincolnwood, IL), and Westforth Sports, Inc. (Gary, IN)— are all within a short drive of Chicago and are the source of thousands of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago. By contrast, during that same time period, the average number of guns traced back to all other gun stores was three.
    
    Between 2009 and 2013, Midwest Gun in Lyons, Illinois, sold 659 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 333 (approximately 51 percent) of those firearms were recovered within three years of the original purchase at Midwest Gun. Chucks Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, sold 1,516 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 529 (approximately 35 percent) of these guns were recovered within three years of purchase. Chucks alone accounts for a whopping eight percent of the total number of guns that were recovered and traced to crimes in Chicago in the last five years.

Some thoughts:

• People commonly note that gun sales/ownership have increased and gun crime has decreased. I have yet to see any of them establish the veracity of there being a causal link between those two observations. I can see as well as the next person that both events seem like they should be more than just circumstantially related, but I have yet to see anything showing the relationship is anything more than circumstantial.
• People commonly note that "such and such" gun regulation would not have stopped "this or that" murderer/shooter, inferring, in turn, that "no" shooter/murderer would ever be stopped by that regulation. What they never bother to point out is how many shooters that very same regulation would have stopped, and, in turn, how many people would be alive/uninjured today were the regulation under discussion implemented. They posit the quantity of lives saved and shooters deterred is zero, but they never produce anything showing that to be so. In contrast, consider Christopher Pittman. Were guns illegal and the child's parents law abiding in accordance with that law, just where would he have come by a shotgun? Just how does one argue that the 256 minor who shot someone in 2015 would have done so were the law abiding adults around them to not own guns?
  
  
  
  Can one say that the adults in those children's lives were stupid, insouciant, "whatever?" Sure, but that just indicates they had no business with a gun any more than did the children whom they allowed to get hold of them. It's a responsible adult's burden/duty to secure their deadly weapons, guns among others, so that children don't get hold of them. So tell me, just how, short of enacting gun possession prohibitions, are we to guard against the glibness of otherwise law abiding adults? After a child around them has injured or killed another person with the adult's gun, it's a bit too late, isn't it?
  
  
• People commonly state that making guns harder to get or in some cases outright illegal to possess won't stop shooters because the shooters will merely buy guns illegally. What they fail to address is that the greater the quantity there is of legal guns available and/or in circulation, the greater quantity of guns that exist to be illegally "procured" from legal owners/sellers.

What one observes then is that repeatedly, while gun rights advocates have some sort of response to all manners of things, they routinely do not directly address those things that actually matter in the discussion of any given proposal for abating or curtailing gun-related deaths/violence. When all else fails, they revert to a Constitutional and SCOTUS line of argument. Even there, however, they again do not address the fact that neither the Founders nor any SCOTUS jurist aimed to create a situation in which one's right to bear arms contributes to citizens' involuntary injury and death.

Look at the graphic in the quoted post above

Just what the hell is up with three year olds, or more appropriately, their parents/guardians? I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the world that will justify to me that three year olds should lead the minor population in the actus rea of gun shootings. To say nothing of 2, 3, and 4 year old toddlers shooting/killing more people than do 15, 16 and 17 year olds. And there are actually folks who have the temerity to tell me that the parents of those "terrifying" toddlers should be permitted to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

I'm sorry, the toddlers, though they have no business getting hold of a gun, is not to blame and has no ability to exercise a 2nd Amendment right. The adults around them are to blame, and clearly they lack the maturity to have been allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the world one can say that can rationally account for an adult allowing a toddler to (1) get hold of a gun and (2) fire the thing at someone (or the child itself) and kill or injure them.

I mean really...come the "F" on! How does one have the audacity to defend the right to bear arms when one has nary the faintest glimmer of an enforceable and 99% reliable proposal for how to stop toddlers' supervising adults from allowing the kids to get hold of a gun, to say nothing of shooting it at someone?

 

[320 Years of History]

Well 320 if I may be so familiar as to call you that, I was going for a touch of humor with my response. I took artistic liberty to rearrange the words and even added one, but what the hell it is just the interweb after all...

Ah, okay. I understand. The humor was achieved. I truly was laughing when I read that. LOL

Yes, 320 is fine, and I appreciate your having the exceptional (for the interweb) decency to ask. Thank you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Try to buy a gun on the internet and see what happens and how that goes. Educate yourself.

It's easier to buy a gun on the Internet than it is to take out a book from the Library...or something

I think they said it was easier to buy a gun than to buy a Happy Meal.....was that it?

Was it easier to buy a jar of Nutella than to buy an AR-15?

 

[Skull Pilot]

there are a lot floating around out there. we need to be doing more buy-back programs

Yeah give a criminal some money for a nonfunctional or badly maintained piece of shit handgun so they go buy a shiny new one

Makes perfect sense

 

[Skull Pilot]

Apparently they're among the top items stolen in home break-ins.

Drugs, Guns, Money and lawyers... In that order...

 

[Crixus]

It's a simple question. Where do guns used in crimes come from? westwall mentioned in another thread

The reality is that gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding. Period end of story. Mexico has some of the harshest laws in the world and every drug thug has a machinegun. Clearly they don't work. So, what does? Putting violent criminals behind bars forever. In Chicago they have 150,000 KNOWN gangbangers. There is a fairly small percentage of those (around 10%) that are incredibly violent. the KNOW who these guys are, and they continuously let them out to prey on their victims.

Let's do one thing that we know works. If you murder someone you go to jail FOREVER.

So we need to discuss the issue.

In our country as many have said theft, straw purchase and so on. Guns are just avaliable. My first gun was given to me. It was a Kragen Jorganson rifle that was painted gray and used to prop a door open. This is a gun country so guns are everywhere legal and otherwise. This is why a ban will never do anything to change gun crime. What I find interesting is that with Mexico in the southwest, and Cuba off in the south east, is that there is not a flood of illegal full auto commi made AK 47's and such on the streets. All through the Caribbean islands and into South America there is a strong market in smuggled military grade weapons. Wonder why the chips and Bloods and MS 13 haven't taken to using those instead.

 

[oldsoul]

theft, straw purchases, illegal purchases.

theft: Who do they steal them from? Legitimate gun owners?

straw purchase: Absolutely. Can laws be amended to preclude back room gun deals, internet sales, etc?

illegal purchases: See above. How else can we eliminate illegal purchases?

Here's how I see it:

1. There is NO WAY to stop ALL illegal gun sales.
2. Criminals will always have guns.
3. Police cannot be everywhere all the time.
4. The ONLY sane answer is to make it easier for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Am I missing anything?

1. It will take years, maybe decades, but it will happen. After the assault weapon ban, murders by assault weapons fell dramatically.

2. Where do they get those guns?

3, That is a sad fact of life.

4. It's not working now, is it?

1. When has making something illegal EVER stopped it from happening?
2. In the end, what does it matter where they come from? It's like trying to discover what came first, the chicken or the egg. Even if you find the answer, it will be of little use.
3. Are you trying to say you would WANT the police everywhere ALL the time? Forget about the expense, do you want the police (aka "big brother"), watching your every move?
4. Um, actually it is.
   

Need I go on?

 

[Hiryuu]

And another point...from the CDC.....as more Americans have purchased guns...our gun accident rates have gone down, not up....

How Many Accidental Gun Injuries per Year? - The Volokh Conspiracy

A guest on the HuffPost Live discussion noted in the post below mentioned that guns injure 5,000 people per year (presumably in the U.S.). Actually, according to CDC’s WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S., though only about 600 people killed in such shootings. As always, keep in mind the limitations of this data, including that some suicides and suicide attempts could be misclassified as accidents.

And with over 357,000,000 guns in private hands......even 19,000 non fatal gun accidents.....and 586 fatal gun accidents in 2015 do not merit denying gun ownership to those gun owners.......

Cars kill 33,000 people a year...and injure close to 2 million a year.......

A little perspective on all the hand wringing......

And guns stop violent crime and save lives 1,500,000 times a year....according to the Department of Justice....

There is something to add to this. As the number of gun owners rises, businesses have seen a similar rise in demands for training. We are a long ways away from a father/grandfather walking in the woods with a bag of empty cans as training. Most new gun owners are buying their firearms for protection (handguns and sporting rifles). Likewise, a great number of them are receiving far better, and more qualified training when they do.

It is not uncommon nowadays for a new gun owner (someone who has not previously owned a firearm), to buy a firearm, enroll and attend certified training and in a lot of cases qualify, test and get a CAC permit. It has become more popular to get decent training and I feel safer around a lot of gun owners now than I have before. I appreciate the fact many possess the desire to learn the proper handling, procedures, tactics and situation awareness associated with firearms and their use.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

• In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.
• Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
  
• Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts -- One section of this analysis indicates that the legality of guns may not be a relevant factor.
  
• FFL NEWSLETTER
  
• Reducing Illegal Firearms Trafficking
  • As of July 1999, the National Crime Information Center database listed 2,341,023 stolen firearms (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999)
• TRACING THE GUNS: THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL GUNS ON VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO
  • The largest out-of-state sources of Chicago’s illegal guns were Indiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, which supplied 19 percent, 6.7 percent, and 3.6 percent of these crime guns, respectively. None of these states have laws that require background checks for purchasers who buy firearms at gun shows or on the Internet.
    
  • Although the majority of Chicago’s crime guns come from the other 49 states combined, between 2009 and 2013, just four local dealers supplied nearly 20 percent of the guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes. These stores – Chucks (Riverdale, IL), Midwest Sporting Goods (Lyons, IL), Shore Galleries (Lincolnwood, IL), and Westforth Sports, Inc. (Gary, IN)— are all within a short drive of Chicago and are the source of thousands of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago. By contrast, during that same time period, the average number of guns traced back to all other gun stores was three.
    
    Between 2009 and 2013, Midwest Gun in Lyons, Illinois, sold 659 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 333 (approximately 51 percent) of those firearms were recovered within three years of the original purchase at Midwest Gun. Chucks Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, sold 1,516 guns that were used in crimes in Chicago, and 529 (approximately 35 percent) of these guns were recovered within three years of purchase. Chucks alone accounts for a whopping eight percent of the total number of guns that were recovered and traced to crimes in Chicago in the last five years.

Some thoughts:

• People commonly note that gun sales/ownership have increased and gun crime has decreased. I have yet to see any of them establish the veracity of there being a causal link between those two observations. I can see as well as the next person that both events seem like they should be more than just circumstantially related, but I have yet to see anything showing the relationship is anything more than circumstantial.
• People commonly note that "such and such" gun regulation would not have stopped "this or that" murderer/shooter, inferring, in turn, that "no" shooter/murderer would ever be stopped by that regulation. What they never bother to point out is how many shooters that very same regulation would have stopped, and, in turn, how many people would be alive/uninjured today were the regulation under discussion implemented. They posit the quantity of lives saved and shooters deterred is zero, but they never produce anything showing that to be so. In contrast, consider Christopher Pittman. Were guns illegal and the child's parents law abiding in accordance with that law, just where would he have come by a shotgun? Just how does one argue that the 256 minor who shot someone in 2015 would have done so were the law abiding adults around them to not own guns?
  
  
  
  Can one say that the adults in those children's lives were stupid, insouciant, "whatever?" Sure, but that just indicates they had no business with a gun any more than did the children whom they allowed to get hold of them. It's a responsible adult's burden/duty to secure their deadly weapons, guns among others, so that children don't get hold of them. So tell me, just how, short of enacting gun possession prohibitions, are we to guard against the glibness of otherwise law abiding adults? After a child around them has injured or killed another person with the adult's gun, it's a bit too late, isn't it?
  
  
• People commonly state that making guns harder to get or in some cases outright illegal to possess won't stop shooters because the shooters will merely buy guns illegally. What they fail to address is that the greater the quantity there is of legal guns available and/or in circulation, the greater quantity of guns that exist to be illegally "procured" from legal owners/sellers.

What one observes then is that repeatedly, while gun rights advocates have some sort of response to all manners of things, they routinely do not directly address those things that actually matter in the discussion of any given proposal for abating or curtailing gun-related deaths/violence. When all else fails, they revert to a Constitutional and SCOTUS line of argument. Even there, however, they again do not address the fact that neither the Founders nor any SCOTUS jurist aimed to create a situation in which one's right to bear arms contributes to citizens' involuntary injury and death.

Progressive "thought": something bad happened somewhere, therefore everyone needs to give up a key fundamental right!

Progressives have an awful track record once they disarm their citizens, the body count is over 100,000,000 people murdered by Progressive gungrabbing Fascists

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a simple question. Where do guns used in crimes come from?
So we need to discuss the issue.

Adam Lanza's gun was stolen.
Omar Mateen's gun was bought legally.
Farook and Malik's guns were bought legally and then illegally converted.