DOJ Report: US Gun control is a failure

[aerius]

Link to the DOJ report (PDF)
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Interesting parts

Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates
(SPI), about 1 in 5 (21%) of all state and federal
prisoners reported that they had possessed or
carried a firearm when they committed the offense
for which they were serving time in prison
(figure 1)
.
More than 1 in 8 (13%) of all prisoners had used
a firearm by showing, pointing, or discharging it
during the offense for which they were imprisoned.
Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had
obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed,
carried, or used it during the offense for which they
were imprisoned.
An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a
firearm during their offense. Among these, more than
half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the
scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it of the street
or from the underground market (43%). Most of
the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
firearm dealer.

Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during the
offense for which they were imprisoned, 7% of state
and 10% of federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016
bought or traded for the firearm from a gun shop or
gun store. About 1% bought or traded for the firearm
at a gun show. About a quarter (26%) of state prisoners
and about a ffh (21%) of federal prisoners obtained a
firearm that they possessed during their offense from
an individual in a non-retail setting, such as a friend or
family member.
Prisoners who reported that they had purchased or
traded a firearm at a retail source were asked if they
had obtained the firearm from a licensed dealer or
private seller. Among prisoners who had possessed a
firearm during the offense for which they were serving
time, 8% of state and 11% of federal prisoners had
purchased it from or traded with a licensed firearm
dealer at a retail source
(table 6)
.
Prisoners who reported that they had purchased a
firearm from a licensed firearm dealer at a retail source
were further asked whether they bought the firearm
under their own name and whether they knew a
background check was conducted. Among those who
had possessed a firearm during the offense for which
they were imprisoned, 7% of state and 8% of federal
prisoners had purchased it under their own name
from a licensed firearm dealer at a retail source, while
approximately 1% of state and 2% of federal prisoners
had purchased a firearm from a licensed dealer at a
retail source but did not purchase it under their own
name (not shown in table).
Among all prisoners who purchased or traded a
firearm from a licensed firearm dealer at a retail source
(8.2%), the majority reported that a background check
was conducted (6.7%)

The much hyped "gun show loophole" turns out to be a much smaller problem than the utter failure of background checks at licensed gun dealers. I already went over this in one of the school shooting threads where a kid who was committed to a mental institution (automatic red flag on background checks) among other things failed to trip any flags when they ran his background check. Also note how common it is to get guns off the black market or through friends & family.

[The_Saint]

This pretty much matches up with the stats here in Australia (and probably elsewhere), that the percentage of crimes committed with a firearm, where that firearm was legally possessed by the person committing the crime, is a small percentage of firearm crime (let alone overall crime).

Notable in Aus, of those crimes committed by legally possessed firearms, if you remove suicide and other crimes where the use of the firearm is incidental/irrelevant to the crime, then crimes committed with legally possessed firearms is effectively zero.

Every non-firearm-owning pundit commenting on the Australian situation seems to harp on about the gun buyback (now proven to be effectively a waste of money and resources) and completely misses a) how Australia licenses firearms and owners (Background checks and straightforward removal of license for a number of reasons), b) a fairly easy border to monitor (not that they do a good job anyway, what was it? 3000 Glocks slipped through in one single farce), c) not a lot of unregistered firearms in the community to begin with (certainly not to the extent of the USA).

TL:DR; the takeaway is that background checks and licensing works in limiting a free-for-all on firearms ONLY if you don't already have an ample supply of unregistered firearms available for easy access.

[Jub]

This just highlights a need to remove guns, especially types commonly used in crimes, from circulation as a part of any effective gun control initiative.

[The Romulan Republic]

By aerius's own acknowledgment, it sounds less like "gun control is a failure" than "we're not focusing on the right kind of gun control". And as others have noted, can be made into an argument that gun control needs to be even broader to be effective.

And given the current administration, I'd also like to know whether pressure was exerted by the Trump administration to make sure that the DOJ reached the "right" conclusions. While reminding everyone that Bob Mueller is currently investigating the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia's NRA money-launderers.

[Elheru Aran]

I'm noticing a few points overall:

--There are a lot of guns in circulation that are -not- legally owned. Legally owned firearms are, by and large, not used in crimes, because most gun owners are reasonably law-abiding people who are quite aware of the legal ramifications of owning firearms. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, though (many weapons used in mass shootings were purchased and owned legally). Which leads to the next point:

--Background checking when firearms are purchased is problematic. Either the stores don't perform it adequately, or the state/federal resources are not on the ball.

--State and federal resources are not coordinated adequately. A city might prohibit a type of firearm commonly used in crimes within its boundaries, but that only means those firearms will be easily found just outside those boundaries. There needs to be better communication and coordination between jurisdictions. Prohibiting sale of firearms at pawn stores might be one way to go-- the store can buy the firearm off someone needing money, but they can't re-sell it legally. I see no reason that this would be a 2A violation as we're talking businesses here, not people. The government could easily periodically collect firearms from the pawn stores for legal resale via police auction or whatever or simple destruction.

[aerius]

By aerius's own acknowledgment, it sounds less like "gun control is a failure" than "we're not focusing on the right kind of gun control". And as others have noted, can be made into an argument that gun control needs to be even broader to be effective.

Have you thought this through? We can have broad effective gun control, but you really won't like what it does to the 4th Amendment.

--Background checking when firearms are purchased is problematic. Either the stores don't perform it adequately, or the state/federal resources are not on the ball.

It's both. The various databases are fragmented as hell and a lot of stuff just slips through the cracks. For instance there's various medical & mental wellness conditions which would disqualify a person from firearms ownership, yet the medical databases don't really talk to the criminal or police side of things. Or sometimes it's reported and the guys on the other side don't even know it's a disqualifying condition so they don't set the flags. Then you get into the errors on the store side and it's actually a miracle it even somewhat works in the first place.

[Elheru Aran]

--Background checking when firearms are purchased is problematic. Either the stores don't perform it adequately, or the state/federal resources are not on the ball.

It's both. The various databases are fragmented as hell and a lot of stuff just slips through the cracks. For instance there's various medical & mental wellness conditions which would disqualify a person from firearms ownership, yet the medical databases don't really talk to the criminal or police side of things. Or sometimes it's reported and the guys on the other side don't even know it's a disqualifying condition so they don't set the flags. Then you get into the errors on the store side and it's actually a miracle it even somewhat works in the first place.

I completely concur. However...

Legally the medical databases have the issue that the Federal HIPAA (HIPPA? whatever) law places some very stringent controls on where and how private, personal health information can be disbursed. Identifying a specific person as having a certain disorder that disqualifies them from purchasing firearms would be a major violation. So you're looking at tweaks to the law on a Federal level, something that doesn't happen easily, particularly keeping said information private somehow. I'm sure this can be done, I'm just not going to speculate foolishly on how at the moment because I don't have the time nor the inclination to be inevitably embarrassed...

[MKSheppard]

The much hyped "gun show loophole" turns out to be a much smaller problem than the utter failure of background checks at licensed gun dealers. I already went over this in one of the school shooting threads where a kid who was committed to a mental institution (automatic red flag on background checks) among other things failed to trip any flags when they ran his background check.

NICS can't say no if nobody actually transmits information to NICS.

[bilateralrope]

TL:DR; the takeaway is that background checks and licensing works in limiting a free-for-all on firearms ONLY if you don't already have an ample supply of unregistered firearms available for easy access.

If you can stop new unregistered firearms moving into the jurisdiction, then the supply of them will eventually dry up as they wear out. But it will be a slow process.

[Jub]

TL:DR; the takeaway is that background checks and licensing works in limiting a free-for-all on firearms ONLY if you don't already have an ample supply of unregistered firearms available for easy access.

If you can stop new unregistered firearms moving into the jurisdiction, then the supply of them will eventually dry up as they wear out. But it will be a slow process.

That would probably take airline security level checkpoints at every entrance and a border security team to manage though. You have to tackle firearms control nationwide or it'll never work. None of these different laws for rural areas versus urbane nonsense either. One standard for the entire nation.

[Napoleon the Clown]

TL:DR; the takeaway is that background checks and licensing works in limiting a free-for-all on firearms ONLY if you don't already have an ample supply of unregistered firearms available for easy access.

If you can stop new unregistered firearms moving into the jurisdiction, then the supply of them will eventually dry up as they wear out. But it will be a slow process.

Properly cared for, guns last a very long time. Wear parts can be replaced without any sort of check. "Wait for them to wear out" isn't very feasible.

[Elheru Aran]

TL:DR; the takeaway is that background checks and licensing works in limiting a free-for-all on firearms ONLY if you don't already have an ample supply of unregistered firearms available for easy access.

If you can stop new unregistered firearms moving into the jurisdiction, then the supply of them will eventually dry up as they wear out. But it will be a slow process.

That would probably take airline security level checkpoints at every entrance and a border security team to manage though. You have to tackle firearms control nationwide or it'll never work. None of these different laws for rural areas versus urbane nonsense either. One standard for the entire nation.

Er.

While in theory I agree with the 'one standard', it does bear noting that the *type* of gun usage in rural areas is predominantly hunting focused, while in urban areas it's self defense.

So you have to design your gun laws to be reasonably loose when it comes to sports and hunting (whether or not you consider hunting a "sport"), but reasonably tight in any other area, if you want an nationwide standard.

And then, a nationwide standard would be difficult to enforce precisely because there are so many different codes and regulations. Can it be done? Possibly. But you'll have to spend a horrendous amount of money to contend with a rural population which is going to freak out because a.) they're conservative by and large, and b.) hunting is a legitimate means of sustenance for quite a lot of people in economically disadvantaged areas. Not to mention all the preppers, militias, and doomsday cults who will take it as a sign that The Man (TM) is coming for them...

[Jub]

Er.

While in theory I agree with the 'one standard', it does bear noting that the *type* of gun usage in rural areas is predominantly hunting focused, while in urban areas it's self defense.

So you have to design your gun laws to be reasonably loose when it comes to sports and hunting (whether or not you consider hunting a "sport"), but reasonably tight in any other area, if you want an nationwide standard.

And then, a nationwide standard would be difficult to enforce precisely because there are so many different codes and regulations. Can it be done? Possibly. But you'll have to spend a horrendous amount of money to contend with a rural population which is going to freak out because a.) they're conservative by and large, and b.) hunting is a legitimate means of sustenance for quite a lot of people in economically disadvantaged areas. Not to mention all the preppers, militias, and doomsday cults who will take it as a sign that The Man (TM) is coming for them...

Canada has the same issues of demographics and animal defense needs and gets by just fine with our set of laws. I don't see why only allowing fully stocked long barrel rifles and shotguns sufficient for hunting and animal defense should be a major issue. These types of bolt or pump action weapons are rarely the sort used in crimes/mass shootings, can still provide home defense, and are the standard weapon for hunters worldwide.

[The Romulan Republic]

The 2nd. Amendment never had anything to do with hunting or sports shooting or any of that, nor even with home defence against criminals. It was explicitly designed with the stated intent of facilitating armed resistance against a government, either foreign invaders or domestic tyrants. Personally I think that certain people pay far too much attention to the "shall not be infringed" part and far too little to the "well-regulated militia" part, but its intent was very specifically to facilitate waging war.

[Elheru Aran]

Er.

While in theory I agree with the 'one standard', it does bear noting that the *type* of gun usage in rural areas is predominantly hunting focused, while in urban areas it's self defense.

So you have to design your gun laws to be reasonably loose when it comes to sports and hunting (whether or not you consider hunting a "sport"), but reasonably tight in any other area, if you want an nationwide standard.

And then, a nationwide standard would be difficult to enforce precisely because there are so many different codes and regulations. Can it be done? Possibly. But you'll have to spend a horrendous amount of money to contend with a rural population which is going to freak out because a.) they're conservative by and large, and b.) hunting is a legitimate means of sustenance for quite a lot of people in economically disadvantaged areas. Not to mention all the preppers, militias, and doomsday cults who will take it as a sign that The Man (TM) is coming for them...

Canada has the same issues of demographics and animal defense needs and gets by just fine with our set of laws. I don't see why only allowing fully stocked long barrel rifles and shotguns sufficient for hunting and animal defense should be a major issue. These types of bolt or pump action weapons are rarely the sort used in crimes/mass shootings, can still provide home defense, and are the standard weapon for hunters worldwide.

The 2nd. Amendment never had anything to do with hunting or sports shooting or any of that, nor even with home defence against criminals. It was explicitly designed with the stated intent of facilitating armed resistance against a government, either foreign invaders or domestic tyrants. Personally I think that certain people pay far too much attention to the "shall not be infringed" part and far too little to the "well-regulated militia" part, but its intent was very specifically to facilitate waging war.

Jub, ^that's important. You can't necessarily just legislate 'assault rifles'/military/tactical-style semiautomatic rifles out of legality without making a good argument that they aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment, as specious as said amendment may be in this day and age.

Bear in mind as well that simply removing certain firearms from legality is absolutely not a guarantee that mass shootings and such won't still happen. One of the worst (until recently) mass shootings was the Texas A&M (I think) clock-tower shooting, where a guy killed like... 17 people with a bolt-action hunting rifle and injured 31 more.

[Jub]

Jub, ^that's important. You can't necessarily just legislate 'assault rifles'/military/tactical-style semiautomatic rifles out of legality without making a good argument that they aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment, as specious as said amendment may be in this day and age.

Bear in mind as well that simply removing certain firearms from legality is absolutely not a guarantee that mass shootings and such won't still happen. One of the worst (until recently) mass shootings was the Texas A&M (I think) clock-tower shooting, where a guy killed like... 17 people with a bolt-action hunting rifle and injured 31 more.

Then why weren't automatic rifles and dedicated machineguns deemed such militia esentials? How about artillery and autocannons which are also military style weapon's systems? If it was just about giving citizen militia's firepower any military weapons ought to skate by.

Plus, at least at first, I'd want to focus on removing handguns as the most often carried type of small arm with the least military value outside of size/weight and cost.

As for stopping gun crime entirely, that's not the point. Acheiving a rate of mass shootings and general firearms crimes to western first world levels would be. It's not even about checking all sources of violent crime but reducing harm and lethality of the crime which does occur. It would likely take decades to have any effect even with a total ban on sale and transference of Pistols in effect immediately, but over that span it would doubtless lower gun crime and pave the way for further restrictions.

Or you know do that thing the US has done before and change the holy scripture constitution.

[Lonestar]

Bear in mind as well that simply removing certain firearms from legality is absolutely not a guarantee that mass shootings and such won't still happen. One of the worst (until recently) mass shootings was the Texas A&M (I think) clock-tower shooting, where a guy killed like... 17 people with a bolt-action hunting rifle and injured 31 more.

Texas University, not A&M.

The media already tends to report any hunting rifle with a scope as a "sniper rifle", so we already know where the next goalpost will be set if semiautomatics are banned. Well, that and "law-enforcement style shotguns"(e.g. pump actions).

[Elheru Aran]

Then why weren't automatic rifles and dedicated machineguns deemed such militia esentials? How about artillery and autocannons which are also military style weapon's systems? If it was just about giving citizen militia's firepower any military weapons ought to skate by.

Don't be absurd; such things didn't exist at the time they wrote the Constitution, and were expensive and rare enough until quite recently that they were largely inaccessible to civilians.

That said, we do have legislation that makes acquiring one legally a matter of a fair amount of hoops to jump through, and they do still cost quite a lot of money. So in terms of gun crime/gun violence, they are a virtual nonentity, organized gang activity notwithstanding (in which case the laws are irrelevant to preventing said activity anyway).

Plus, at least at first, I'd want to focus on removing handguns as the most often carried type of small arm with the least military value outside of size/weight and cost.

The issue with eliminating handguns is that they are the most common and most convenient self-defense implement, and additionally, they have been ruled legal to own and use for home defense. While they may not have much military application, they continue to be carried by the military regardless, because they are still very useful in close up personal defense situations. You can make an argument for removing handguns as a way to hinder gun crime, but otherwise it's not going to fly.

As for stopping gun crime entirely, that's not the point. Acheiving a rate of mass shootings and general firearms crimes to western first world levels would be. It's not even about checking all sources of violent crime but reducing harm and lethality of the crime which does occur. It would likely take decades to have any effect even with a total ban on sale and transference of Pistols in effect immediately, but over that span it would doubtless lower gun crime and pave the way for further restrictions.

Or you know do that thing the US has done before and change the holy scripture constitution.

I think you massively underestimate the gun lobby's power, the utter prevalence of firearms in American society, and the casual disregard most Americans have towards laws that inconvenience them...

[LadyTevar]

TL:DR; the takeaway is that background checks and licensing works in limiting a free-for-all on firearms ONLY if you don't already have an ample supply of unregistered firearms available for easy access.

If you can stop new unregistered firearms moving into the jurisdiction, then the supply of them will eventually dry up as they wear out. But it will be a slow process.

Properly cared for, guns last a very long time. Wear parts can be replaced without any sort of check. "Wait for them to wear out" isn't very feasible.

Here in WV, guns are often heirlooms passed down to the kids and grandkids. My eldest brother's "deer rifle" is a 1950's M-1 Garand that my father smuggled back from boot camp. Dad broke down, cleaned, and oiled that rifle every other month, whether it needed it or not, and it was his favorite 'deer rifle'. My .410 shotgun is a 1970s model, and although I didn't clean her like I should have, she still leaves a nice spread on a target.

[Elheru Aran]

If you can stop new unregistered firearms moving into the jurisdiction, then the supply of them will eventually dry up as they wear out. But it will be a slow process.

Properly cared for, guns last a very long time. Wear parts can be replaced without any sort of check. "Wait for them to wear out" isn't very feasible.

Here in WV, guns are often heirlooms passed down to the kids and grandkids. My eldest brother's "deer rifle" is a 1950's M-1 Garand that my father smuggled back from boot camp. Dad broke down, cleaned, and oiled that rifle every other month, whether it needed it or not, and it was his favorite 'deer rifle'. My .410 shotgun is a 1970s model, and although I didn't clean her like I should have, she still leaves a nice spread on a target.

Yeah, I was gonna note, it's totally possible to find WWII-era firearms in still perfect working order being retailed. Maybe they have had some work done if there's excessive wear and tear, like replacing a barrel or something, but they're there. There's still even stuff from WWI still around, though those aren't generally fired because they're rare.

Point being, firearms are made quite durable. Aside from safety reasons-- nobody wants a small explosive going off in close proximity to their bodies-- they have to put up with thousands if not millions of repeated operations back and forth, parts wearing against each other, corrosive gunpowder byproducts, weather, handling... and it bears noting that these aren't items that are *continuously* used like automobiles, where the engine is doing thousands of revolutions per minute while turned on. Correspondingly, autos wear out much quicker in comparison... and there's still plenty of drivable vehicles from the 1950s, 60s, 70s and so forth. Compare that to a pistol which might never get fired in anger and gets fired maybe once every few months, a few rounds run through it at a shooting range, cleaned afterwards. That pistol is gonna last a pretty darn long time unless someone drops it in a cistern for a few years.

And if you think you can ban passing firearms between generations... expect quite a bit of outcry at that. Not only is there sentimental value, there's some real value in them, even if it depreciates for some time. They can be collectors' items, and a large collection can be worth quite a bit of money in its own right.

[Lonestar]

eah, I was gonna note, it's totally possible to find WWII-era firearms in still perfect working order being retailed.

I just got a email from the CMP today saying I got a number in the 1911 lotto, and the latest handgun will have a serial number dating to summer of 1945. Unlike with Garand sales, which frequently include parkerized refurbs, these will be cleaned and sent out as is.

From what I've seen of people who already got theirs, the "service grade" ones with some rust/pitting and wear look shockingly good. It's amazong how well cosmoline preserves firearms.

[Elheru Aran]

eah, I was gonna note, it's totally possible to find WWII-era firearms in still perfect working order being retailed.

I just got a email from the CMP today saying I got a number in the 1911 lotto, and the latest handgun will have a serial number dating to summer of 1945. Unlike with Garand sales, which frequently include parkerized refurbs, these will be cleaned and sent out as is.

From what I've seen of people who already got theirs, the "service grade" ones with some rust/pitting and wear look shockingly good. It's amazong how well cosmoline preserves firearms.

Out of curiosity Lonestar. Is there any statistics on whether there have been any crimes committed with CMP weapons? Or is that obviated by people who know about and subscribe to CMP being largely law abiding gun people to start with? (suspect this is the case most of the time)

[Lonestar]

I cannot possibly imagine there are a lot of dudes committing crimes with Garands or bolt-action rifles. Maybe M1 Carbines,they were the tactical carbine of choice because of how cheap they were compared to nearly any other for decades(NJ even banned them by name) but the CMP has basically only sold those at auction for the past 10 years or so.

Given the relative hoops one has to jump through to apply(must have evidence of sporting use, etc) the system is more analogous to other OECD countries than most of the US. Doesn't stop people who think that guns are banned from private ownership in Europe to scream about them being sold to the public though.

[Raw Shark]

the Federal HIPAA (HIPPA? whatever) law

It's HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), but in practice everybody pronounces it as though it was HIPPA.

[Civil War Man]

The 2nd. Amendment never had anything to do with hunting or sports shooting or any of that, nor even with home defence against criminals. It was explicitly designed with the stated intent of facilitating armed resistance against a government, either foreign invaders or domestic tyrants. Personally I think that certain people pay far too much attention to the "shall not be infringed" part and far too little to the "well-regulated militia" part, but its intent was very specifically to facilitate waging war.

Actually, a big part of it was making sure an armed citizenry could be quickly mustered to put down slave revolts.