Detroit Man Saves Himself and His Wife from Home Invaders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to a radio story this morning that was discussing (in part) the Los Angeles gun sale requirements. I missed some of the details, but I gather that LA started sending letters to people who had started the gun buying process, warning them that straw purchases are illegal and will be prosecuted. Very quickly, LA found that 40% of prospective gun buyers never returned to complete the buying process. This only works because there is a waiting period and background check process.

Any data showing what the no-return percentage was before the letter campaigns started? I actually think this is a great idea, I just think its effectiveness may be over stated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why are gun advocates against universal background checks? Hiding something?

I am a gun advocate, I am in favor of universal background checks. It makes a lot of sense. I believe most gun owners are also in favor of universal background checks, it's a very popular position. I believe the issue here is with implementation - how do you enable/enforce private-party sale of firearms on this requirement. I don't know what the answer is. A lot of firearm is gifted, inherited, or sold between good friends who know each other. Cars mostly drive on public roads, triggering the requirement for proper title and registration. But most firearms are held in a private home, or conceal-carried on a person, there is no easy enforcement point.

I own 3 guns, all bought from shops in VA, and I went through a background check each time.

Maybe gun shops can provide this service for a nominal fee? Like the annual VA car safety inspection done at gas stations. Buyer/seller can show up at a gun shop to do a background check. The seller/buyer can choose to keep the sale itself private or record it with the state. If a crime is commited with the gun within 1/3/5 years of a sale, the seller must be able to produce proof of the sale, either kept on record with the state, or produce a copy of a signed private sales agreement, and proof of a background check. Otherwise, the seller loses the right to posses guns, and must pay a fine equivalent to the market value of the gun sold.

Keep in mind, this does nothing to prevent straw purchases, where there is a intent for someone to buy a gun and give it to someone they know is going to use it in a crime. However, lets hope that there's far fewer of this type of people and will therefore make it tougher for criminals and mentally unstable people to obtain guns.

Some great ideas here. Thank you for posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to a radio story this morning that was discussing (in part) the Los Angeles gun sale requirements. I missed some of the details, but I gather that LA started sending letters to people who had started the gun buying process, warning them that straw purchases are illegal and will be prosecuted. Very quickly, LA found that 40% of prospective gun buyers never returned to complete the buying process. This only works because there is a waiting period and background check process.

Any data showing what the no-return percentage was before the letter campaigns started? I actually think this is a great idea, I just think its effectiveness may be over stated.

It was just a quick mention in a radio program that was focused on other topics, so no detailed discussion of the statistical significance.

S/O - A quick search turned up this interesting research paper about illegal gun distribution in Los Angeles - http://www.policeissues.com/Sources.pdf Some key conclusion quotes are below.

Our findings portray a considerably different model of gun redistribution
than the literature had led us to expect. Instead of a market predominantly
comprising of petty criminals selling stolen guns, we encountered a setting rich
with licensed and unlicensed entrepreneurs who bought guns directly from
licensed sources in order to satisfy their customers’ craving for new, large-caliber
pistols. Episodes of large scale, commercialized gun diversion seemed
commonplace, with eight instances involving more than 1,000 guns each.
Though much less precise, recovery statistics were equally striking, with eight
cases surpassing the 100-gun threshold.

Dealer corruption emerged as a surprisingly significant source of supply. Gun
tracing disclosed that some retailers had not only failed to account for incoming
guns but also ignored State registration requirements. Malfeasance by licensees
was particularly evident in the casework, as 71 percent (13,667) of the diverted
guns passed through 15 licensed dealers who made unrecorded or misrecorded
sales to individuals and unlicensed vendors.

Concerns that misconduct by just a few retailers can have a disproportionate
impact were advanced during a recent scholarly review of national trace data
(Pierce et al., 1995). Less than one-half of 1 percent of gun dealers were found to
account for nearly 50 percent of all guns traced by ATF (Pierce et al., 1995, p. 15).
Brief lag times (defined as two years or less between sale and recovery) were
associated with less than 3 percent of licensees; these sources, in turn, were
responsible for nearly 28 percent of all traced firearms (Pierce et al., 1995, p. 15).

Concerns about home dealers were well placed. Of the 15 retailers accused in
the casework, only two were commercial gun stores. Ten were home businesses,
while three operated from a hybrid location. It seems that the privacy and
flexibility enjoyed by gun dealers who are licensed to do business from a private
dwelling can make oversight a tough task, indeed (Cook et al., 1995; Larson,
1994).

Many persons who misuse or illegally possess firearms evidently do buy
them in stores. Of the fully traced, 14 percent of guns were recovered from their
first retail buyer. Estimates from offender surveys have pegged self-purchase at
16 to 27 percent (Beck et al., 1993; Wright et al., 1983).

Other than for its brief mention in a study of juvenile gun possession and a
few references elsewhere, the phenomenon of straw purchase has been
overlooked. Surely, buying guns on behalf of another person entails some risk.
But for the end user it offers a simple and relatively safe way to acquire a new
gun without declaring oneself “on paper” (and without, one may add, paying the
markup that a street dealer or corrupt licensee might impose for the privilege of
conducting a paperless transaction).

Some final comments. Short of anointing licensees with psychic powers, there
is little to be done about buyers who commit crimes with guns they lawfully
acquire, or straw purchasers who deliver firearms to prohibited persons. It
seems, though, that a few corrupt dealers and unlicensed vendors – to repeat the
cliché, just a few rotten apples – are responsible for an abundant number of
recovered guns, both as a proximate source and as an conduit to others. Since
traffickers often acquire guns from distributors, monitoring suspicious
purchases at wholesalers – particularly, by home and hybrid dealers – may
prove helpful. Like techniques could be applied at the retailer level to counter the
use of straw buyers by street vendors. But whatever methods are ultimately
employed, there is no doubt that a concerted bid to root out the individuals and
firms who engage in commercialized gun diversion would have a salutary effect
on the gun marketplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why are gun advocates against universal background checks? Hiding something?

I am a gun advocate, I am in favor of universal background checks. It makes a lot of sense. I believe most gun owners are also in favor of universal background checks, it's a very popular position. I believe the issue here is with implementation - how do you enable/enforce private-party sale of firearms on this requirement. I don't know what the answer is. A lot of firearm is gifted, inherited, or sold between good friends who know each other. Cars mostly drive on public roads, triggering the requirement for proper title and registration. But most firearms are held in a private home, or conceal-carried on a person, there is no easy enforcement point.

I own 3 guns, all bought from shops in VA, and I went through a background check each time.

Maybe gun shops can provide this service for a nominal fee? Like the annual VA car safety inspection done at gas stations. Buyer/seller can show up at a gun shop to do a background check. The seller/buyer can choose to keep the sale itself private or record it with the state. If a crime is commited with the gun within 1/3/5 years of a sale, the seller must be able to produce proof of the sale, either kept on record with the state, or produce a copy of a signed private sales agreement, and proof of a background check. Otherwise, the seller loses the right to posses guns, and must pay a fine equivalent to the market value of the gun sold.

Keep in mind, this does nothing to prevent straw purchases, where there is a intent for someone to buy a gun and give it to someone they know is going to use it in a crime. However, lets hope that there's far fewer of this type of people and will therefore make it tougher for criminals and mentally unstable people to obtain guns.

Thank you for your reasoned response.

You may not be able to catch all cases of private sales, but a huge number of private sales are done via gun shows and on-line. You can regulate those sales vehicles. You can require all gun show sellers to require background checks and show proof of background check for every sale that is made. You can require on-line gun sales sites have a background check clause with a background verification code of some sort to complete on-line sales of guns. Yes, you will have a black market that ignores this and you will have private sales or transactions like between family that does not, but I would bet that of the 40% of annual gun sales that are transferred via private sales that you will get at least 80-90% of those transactions. You can cut the 40% of unregistered gun sales down to 4-8% unregistered gun sales.

The next step is that you regularly and publicly note that unregistered guns will be confiscated until such time as the owner can prove that they have registered the gun and submitted to a background check. So, if George Zimmerman is caught patrolling his neighborhood with an unregistered or has not had a background check done, and he calls 911, a responding officer can check whether the gun is registered (just like he can check if a car is registered during a traffic stop) and if the owner has had a background check completed. If not, the gun is confiscated, he's given a receipt and he can get his gun back when he has registered the gun and completed a background check. If a person is defending his home, shoots an intruder (like the man in Detroit), then when the authorities arrive at the end, they can conduct the same check and take the same actions.

You will not have 100% compliance ever, and you will have a relatively low compliance initially, but the goal is to have strong compliance (like 95% of more) after several years, which is quite achievable.

The main reason that this does not have enough traction is that the NRA is a very, very powerful lobby and they are afraid of the slippery slope of any gun regulation so they fight tooth and nail with a huge investment of money to convince lawmakers to avoid any hint of compromise on gun restrictions. We need to find a way to move this conversation on around the gun lobby or we will continue to have Sandy Hooks, Orlando Pulse and Charleston church incidents more and more frequently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why are gun advocates against universal background checks? Hiding something?

I am a gun advocate, I am in favor of universal background checks. It makes a lot of sense. I believe most gun owners are also in favor of universal background checks, it's a very popular position. I believe the issue here is with implementation - how do you enable/enforce private-party sale of firearms on this requirement. I don't know what the answer is. A lot of firearm is gifted, inherited, or sold between good friends who know each other. Cars mostly drive on public roads, triggering the requirement for proper title and registration. But most firearms are held in a private home, or conceal-carried on a person, there is no easy enforcement point.

I own 3 guns, all bought from shops in VA, and I went through a background check each time.

Maybe gun shops can provide this service for a nominal fee? Like the annual VA car safety inspection done at gas stations. Buyer/seller can show up at a gun shop to do a background check. The seller/buyer can choose to keep the sale itself private or record it with the state. If a crime is commited with the gun within 1/3/5 years of a sale, the seller must be able to produce proof of the sale, either kept on record with the state, or produce a copy of a signed private sales agreement, and proof of a background check. Otherwise, the seller loses the right to posses guns, and must pay a fine equivalent to the market value of the gun sold.

Keep in mind, this does nothing to prevent straw purchases, where there is a intent for someone to buy a gun and give it to someone they know is going to use it in a crime. However, lets hope that there's far fewer of this type of people and will therefore make it tougher for criminals and mentally unstable people to obtain guns.

Thank you for your reasoned response.

You may not be able to catch all cases of private sales, but a huge number of private sales are done via gun shows and on-line. You can regulate those sales vehicles. You can require all gun show sellers to require background checks and show proof of background check for every sale that is made. You can require on-line gun sales sites have a background check clause with a background verification code of some sort to complete on-line sales of guns. Yes, you will have a black market that ignores this and you will have private sales or transactions like between family that does not, but I would bet that of the 40% of annual gun sales that are transferred via private sales that you will get at least 80-90% of those transactions. You can cut the 40% of unregistered gun sales down to 4-8% unregistered gun sales.

The next step is that you regularly and publicly note that unregistered guns will be confiscated until such time as the owner can prove that they have registered the gun and submitted to a background check. So, if George Zimmerman is caught patrolling his neighborhood with an unregistered or has not had a background check done, and he calls 911, a responding officer can check whether the gun is registered (just like he can check if a car is registered during a traffic stop) and if the owner has had a background check completed. If not, the gun is confiscated, he's given a receipt and he can get his gun back when he has registered the gun and completed a background check. If a person is defending his home, shoots an intruder (like the man in Detroit), then when the authorities arrive at the end, they can conduct the same check and take the same actions.

You will not have 100% compliance ever, and you will have a relatively low compliance initially, but the goal is to have strong compliance (like 95% of more) after several years, which is quite achievable.

The main reason that this does not have enough traction is that the NRA is a very, very powerful lobby and they are afraid of the slippery slope of any gun regulation so they fight tooth and nail with a huge investment of money to convince lawmakers to avoid any hint of compromise on gun restrictions. We need to find a way to move this conversation on around the gun lobby or we will continue to have Sandy Hooks, Orlando Pulse and Charleston church incidents more and more frequently.

Sounds good to me!