Need help gathering gun crime statistics?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yes, it was a NY law. Didnt cover other private sales.

So, undocumented after-market sales are only illegal at gun shows, but perfectly legal anywhere else in NYS? That seems bizarre to me. What is the argument in favor of keeping the after-market sales so unregulated?

Personally I dont have a problem with background checks for all levels of sales. I believe the entire argument against them is the "give them and inch and they take a mile" stance. And they may very well be right given the approach NY has taken to passing the Safe act. I believe it will do nothing but has driven a wedge betweent he two views, making any common ground approach very doubtful. Sad days.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Culvercreek hunt club

[virgil]

I see it for what it is, just something to discourage people to buy a gun by any means other than a shop, and it will have no effect whatsoever on those purchasing illegal guns on the black market.

But, isn't this how a lot of guns are making it onto the black market in the first place? It seems to me that it's hard to make the argument that all of the proposed gun laws will only affect law abiding gun owners, but to oppose an obvious route for legally purchased guns to become illegally possessed.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Sure, alot of them get into the black market that way. If someone is acting as a straw buyer, or selling to someone known to be a convicted felon or otherwise not allowed to posses a firearm, they are breaking the laws that already exist. If someone thats not allowed to purchase a firearm goes to a different state and buys one, then returns to their home state with it, they are breaking the law. Alot of them get into the black market through theft as well.

Please, explain how another law is going to prevent any of these criminals from giving a damn about the law and adhering to that one, while they break the ones already in place.

As I said, without total registration, no new law will do much good.

[ants]

Ants, I think you're a bit confused regarding the 'gun show loophole'. The laws that exist for registered dealers and people in the business do not apply to ordinary citizens when conducting private sales.

This is from Wikipedia regarding 'gun show loophole':

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.

Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists. In the summer of 2011, Adam Gadahn declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also incorrectly claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadahn urged Western extremists to follow this path. Subsequent news analysis indicated that individuals could not actually buy a fully automatic assault rifle at gun shows, although purchases of semi-automatic handguns and extended magazines remain legal without a criminal background check.^[10][11]

This is pretty much what I said. It applies to individual (private) sales and does not apply to hand guns which, like it or not, account for the majority of gun violence. Im talking about New York state here.

[virgil]

Please, explain how another law is going to prevent any of these criminals from giving a damn about the law and adhering to that one, while they break the ones already in place.

I think that if there were a paper trail for after market sales, straw purchases would be curbed. If a gun that turns up as part of a crime can be traced back to it's original owner, straw buyers would think twice.

[ants]

Please, explain how another law is going to prevent any of these criminals from giving a damn about the law and adhering to that one, while they break the ones already in place.

I think that if there were a paper trail for after market sales, straw purchases would be curbed. If a gun that turns up as part of a crime can be traced back to it's original owner, straw buyers would think twice.

I agree with that. Im not a huge gun control guy, but the fact that a guy in NY can drive a few hours to Ohio, pay a friend/associate there with an in state valid license to buy a hand gun(S) for him and then bring it back into NY where it is used in a crime is BS. I don't have a problem with all states having a pistol permit process similar to New York State.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Please, explain how another law is going to prevent any of these criminals from giving a damn about the law and adhering to that one, while they break the ones already in place.

I think that if there were a paper trail for after market sales, straw purchases would be curbed. If a gun that turns up as part of a crime can be traced back to it's original owner, straw buyers would think twice.

I can see that, but it also brings up the issue of a firearms ownership database, which is illegal. Lets also not forget that long guns are in the vast minority when it comes to gun crimes anyhow.

I dont really disagree with some sort of national handgun permit system, similar to NY's but not left to each county's discretion, etc. It would need to be a uniform set of rules.

I do not agree with this sort of thing for long guns.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Let's just put out of our minds for a quick second that most of us don't trust the Govt. (Just go me on a list for that one...lol) I would really like to see a permit like a drivers license and have it be national. I passed my background check so I should be able to drive from NY to CA with my firearms (pistols included). Everyone should have the same standard of evaluation. This one county not issuing a standard CC permit without restrictions to the hoops you guys in the cespool...I mean NY City... have to go through to get a carry long gun, say nothing about a pistol permit, While the other end of the spectrum in states Maine you just need a drivers license. Nuts. I wish it were standard.

I keep hearing the arguments that these new laws are needed nad it will fix the problems. I have read so many articles, studies and statistics my head spins. I just don't see it. It this approach were so effective then wouldn't our streets be drug free? We have laws on laws to make possession sale and use of illegal drugs, well, illegal.

[josephmrtn]

Let's just put out of our minds for a quick second that most of us don't trust the Govt. (Just go me on a list for that one...lol) I would really like to see a permit like a drivers license and have it be national. I passed my background check so I should be able to drive from NY to CA with my firearms (pistols included). Everyone should have the same standard of evaluation. This one county not issuing a standard CC permit without restrictions to the hoops you guys in the cespool...I mean NY City... have to go through to get a carry long gun, say nothing about a pistol permit, While the other end of the spectrum in states Maine you just need a drivers license. Nuts. I wish it were standard.

I keep hearing the arguments that these new laws are needed nad it will fix the problems. I have read so many articles, studies and statistics my head spins. I just don't see it. If this approach were so effective then wouldn't our streets be drug free? We have laws on laws to make possession sale and use of illegal drugs, well, illegal.

Bob for state governor!!!!!

[ants]

Need a little help. My Google is down...Im trying to find out where most of the gun violence in the U.S. occurs. It's in the suburbs and rural areas.....right????

[josephmrtn]

Yup:

Gun-related violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles aka young adult males

BTW:

Supreme Court first attempted to clarify the meaning of this amendment (2nd) in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which it invalidated a firearm ban in Washington, D.C., stating that the second amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. In June 28, 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of McDonald v. Chicago that this protection extends to the states as well.

That pretty much throws out the NYSAFE act...

Notice the "RIGHT to possess" the "Traditionaly Lawful Purpose" such as "self defense" No mention of hunting that im aware of...

Take That Cumoron!!!

[josephmrtn]

HMMM and they are trying to ban "assault" rifles... looks like a roundabout way to get all guns to me...

[Doc]

So 88GW ..... I know the thread has wandered a bit, but did you get what you were looking for?

[88GW]

DOC. Still gathering info. Sifting through and trying to find most current info.

[jjb4900]

I don't know how specifically they break down the crime info, but I'm going to say if you look at the statistics of the majority of the mass shootings and murders where people go off the deep end and kill their relatives, coworkers, etc., you'll find that these were committed using legally owned guns.........as far as your "street crimes" go, the most are committed with illegal guns, and believe it or not alot of crimes are committed using fake guns.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

as far as your "street crimes" go, the most are committed with illegal guns, and believe it or not alot of crimes are committed using fake guns.

And that is the vaset majority of the firearms related murders.

Maybe these may help a bit

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The issue I have with all this gun control is they are not sincere in there efforts and eliminating one freedom and right is just opening the flood gate to more. How far is too far? If we want to really look at statistics and decide we want to take harsh steps to really "stop" the gun violence then the assault weapons should not have been the first move. Pistols should not have even been the first move. Statistically speaking and since infringing on rights is no longer an issue, All African Americans should have all their ability to own a fiream removed. Statistically they are far more likely to commit a crime and commit murder and commit murder with a firearm. According to the FBI. SO how far is too far?

[jjb4900]

The reason "assault" weapons draw so much attention when they are used is usually because of the mass casualties..........much like a plane crash. Planes are a much safer mode of transportation than automobile travel, single car crashes count for hundreds more deaths than airplanes, but travelling by airplane puts fear into many people......they both generate an unwarranted fear in the general public

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I understand the reasons behind it I just don't agree with the logic of it. It is an emotional response. Much like the poll numbers they are using to show support for Coumo's actions in pushing this through. I would love to see the numbers AND the questions for the polls.

The general public knows nothing of what was and what now is included in laws regarding guns. If I asked general questions on the street like

"do you support the safe act and it's reduction in magazine capacity from high capacity to 7 rounds"?

"Do you think reducing the capacity of a magaine by only 3 rounds will make any difference in murder rates"?

I could see a huge swing in the results.

Has anyone seen the poll questions used in the poll they keep quoting showing "overwhelming" support for the Safe Act?

[Doc]

The issue I have with all this gun control is they are not sincere in there efforts and eliminating one freedom and right is just opening the flood gate to more. How far is too far? If we want to really look at statistics and decide we want to take harsh steps to really "stop" the gun violence then the assault weapons should not have been the first move. Pistols should not have even been the first move. Statistically speaking and since infringing on rights is no longer an issue, All African Americans should have all their ability to own a fiream removed. Statistically they are far more likely to commit a crime and commit murder and commit murder with a firearm. According to the FBI. SO how far is too far?

How far indeed. What would it take in the minds of your typical anti gun person to satisfy them that guns would no longer be used in crimes. Their answers would be, "The total elimination of firearms in private hands". That is how far they really want to go. Never mind all this picking around the edges, assault rifles and magazine sizes and such. If you want to know how far they really want to go, it is the complete elimination of privately owned firearms ..... period. And if somehow they were to magically make that happen, there are many other things that they would eventually want outlawed because they are lethal and will be used in criminal ways. These people do not think in normal or realistic ways. There is no logic or reasoning used. They do actually believe that anti-social evil can be controlled by controlling the rights of the general population. So I think that the answer to your question, in the minds of the antis, is that there is no limit that is "too far". You will have a hard time getting them to admit that, but the truth is that they have no concept of "too far".

[virgil]

How far indeed. What would it take in the minds of your typical anti gun person to satisfy them that guns would no longer be used in crimes. Their answers would be, "The total elimination of firearms in private hands". That is how far they really want to go. Never mind all this picking around the edges, assault rifles and magazine sizes and such. If you want to know how far they really want to go, it is the complete elimination of privately owned firearms ..... period. And if somehow they were to magically make that happen, there are many other things that they would eventually want outlawed because they are lethal and will be used in criminal ways. These people do not think in normal or realistic ways. There is no logic or reasoning used. They do actually believe that anti-social evil can be controlled by controlling the rights of the general population. So I think that the answer to your question, in the minds of the antis, is that there is no limit that is "too far". You will have a hard time getting them to admit that, but the truth is that they have no concept of "too far".

Doc, who are these bogeymen that you keep referring to as 'they'. And, do you have any quotes from any of them to back up any of the statements you just made?

[virgil]

Statistically speaking and since infringing on rights is no longer an issue, All African Americans should have all their ability to own a fiream removed. Statistically they are far more likely to commit a crime and commit murder and commit murder with a firearm.

Culver, you're kidding, right?

[Doc]

How far indeed. What would it take in the minds of your typical anti gun person to satisfy them that guns would no longer be used in crimes. Their answers would be, "The total elimination of firearms in private hands". That is how far they really want to go. Never mind all this picking around the edges, assault rifles and magazine sizes and such. If you want to know how far they really want to go, it is the complete elimination of privately owned firearms ..... period. And if somehow they were to magically make that happen, there are many other things that they would eventually want outlawed because they are lethal and will be used in criminal ways. These people do not think in normal or realistic ways. There is no logic or reasoning used. They do actually believe that anti-social evil can be controlled by controlling the rights of the general population. So I think that the answer to your question, in the minds of the antis, is that there is no limit that is "too far". You will have a hard time getting them to admit that, but the truth is that they have no concept of "too far".

Doc, who are these bogeymen that you keep referring to as 'they'. And, do you have any quotes from any of them to back up any of the statements you just made?

As far as who these anti gun people are, I can only say that if the shoe fits ..... wear it. If you can't recognize an antigun fanatic, then you likely are part of them. If they are bogeymen, then so be it. I have other names for them that are less complimentary. As far as the quotes, I think I did say that "you will have a hard time getting them to admit that". I that is because most of them haven't even thought all that deeply about where their line of thought logically leads them.

[virgil]

As far as who these anti gun people are, I can only say that if the shoe fits ..... wear it. If you can't recognize an antigun fanatic, then you likely are part of them. If they are bogeymen, then so be it. I have other names for them that are less complimentary. As far as the quotes, I think I did say that "you will have a hard time getting them to admit that". I that is because most of them haven't even thought all that deeply about where their line of thought logically leads them.

Great answer, thanks.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Statistically speaking and since infringing on rights is no longer an issue, All African Americans should have all their ability to own a fiream removed. Statistically they are far more likely to commit a crime and commit murder and commit murder with a firearm.

Culver, you're kidding, right?

I don't agree with that action or approach in the least and I was trying to illustrate that if they really wanted to take a bit out the violence the assault weapons is not where to start. You would logically start with the largest statistical "cause" of the murders. They would never do that becasue of the make up of their base. But if they were genuine in ther desire to reduce that firearms murder rate they would start there. This leads to Doc's point. It isn't their true intention.

as far as quotes from them stating their goal that they want total elimination of lawfully owned firearms, you won't fin any other than a few slips and references to Austrailia and England's "success. It is up to each to draw their own conclusions and I agree with Doc in that being their goal.