Gun Owners & Sellers Need to be Held Accountable to Save Lives
The following alert is from Freedom States Alliance affiliate, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
by Daniel W. Webster
At the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, we are dedicated to reducing gun-related injuries and deaths through the application of a public health perspective and sound, science-based research.
In recent years, we have focused on illegal gun markets -- and opportunities to disrupt those markets so it is more difficult for dangerous people to get guns.
Overall, we feel that we are establishing a body of evidence that demonstrates a vitally important fact: Measures to make gun sellers and owners more accountable can reduce the likelihood that guns wind up in the wrong hands.
We also want to know what are the appropriate criteria for someone to purchase and possess a gun. In many cases, the standards are not strict enough. We often come across the notion that if you pass a background check, you are considered a law-abiding gun owner. But the fact of the matter is that you can be convicted of a whole host of crimes and still have access to a gun.
A number of things will suggest that it is not a good idea for you to have a firearm. For example, there is a large number of people who have been convicted of crimes involving violence, drugs, or alcohol abuse that are classified as misdemeanors -- yet they are still allowed to purchase, possess, and even carry a gun in public.
Discussions of gun policy usually focus on points of disagreement. But these discussions often lose sight of a key fact – that there is agreement among gun owners and those who don't own guns that they don't want dangerous people to have guns. Where we differ is whether we think regulations can be effective.
People who fight against regulation of guns often proclaim that regulation is a waste of time -- it will only inconvenience or harm law-abiding gun owners. And yet, we are building up a body of research evidence which shows that through comprehensive, well-thought out and enforced measures, we can limit the availability of guns to dangerous people.
There are a lot of studies that each side refers to on this issue. When you get to questions asking whether drug addicts, people convicted of any felony, people with serious mental illnesses, and other potentially dangerous people should have guns, the data is so clear. They should not. Risk assessment research identifies groups of individuals who are clearly dangerous -- and firearms in their hands can make them more dangerous.
And yet, there is a disconnect between what the public supports and what politicians adopt. Even among those who support a range of firearms regulations, there is skepticism that you can actually effect lasting changes. The NRA has perpetuated a myth that criminals will always find ways around laws and that laws that regulate gun transactions are an affront to the Second Amendment.
Our research refutes that notion.
What we need to do is move away from what is often a cultural debate to a policy debate.
A policy debate would start from generally agreed-upon goals -- and what I believe is an almost universally agreed-upon goal: Dangerous people shouldn't have guns. We must keep saying that and using evidence to back it up.
If we start from that premise and move to specific policies, we can focus on what measures can work. What is the alternative?
We can keep hearing what we often hear in our culture – angry discussion in the blogosphere, on cable television and in newspapers. One group shouting about freedom and the Second Amendment and another group that truly finds guns and gun owners distasteful. The logical place, at least for our Center, is in the arena of useful policy questions -- and working to advance almost universal goals to advance public safety.
We are open to all kinds of public health strategies that can fit the issue of gun violence. In the end, we believe it is essential to use credible science when finding out what works. One example is that in four different studies, our research focuses on retail gun dealers. These studies show that the flow of guns into criminal markets goes down in response to efforts to hold retailers accountable for illegal sales practices.
Simply put, we find that there is a direct correlation between higher degree of scrutiny placed on gun dealers and the reduction in how many guns are sold to criminals.
These findings debunk the notion that retailers have no role on this issue. We need to make it so that licensed sellers of guns are more accountable for what they do. The same thing applies to private sellers of firearms. States that regulate private sellers have significantly less gun trafficking than those that do not regulate gun transactions.
An interesting fact about this issue is that changes in how guns are bought and sold may not always require new legislation to be passed. It's not an "either/or" situation: we should shore up laws, but also do a much better job of enforcing those on the books. Either way, we see the potential of public policy to be a positive one that can save lives.
Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH is Co-Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Associate Director of the Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
"crimes involving violence, drugs , or alcohol abuse that are classified as misdemeanors" - perhaps our justice system needs to STOP plea-bargining down serious crimes? Remember a recent shooting that made national news could have stopped had the Marine Corp records showing the individual had problems were not released ?
"cultural debate to a policy debate." Sorry, this would assume we are giving up our God given right to self-defense and all the other aspects guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment! NO!
I could continue, but remember, since 1968 the firearms industry is probably the MOST regulated industry there is. Perhaps a key issue would be to clean up the act of the heavy-handed ATF?
A stupid article intended for consumption by stupid people. Among other things, it's mostly bald faced lies. What is the current state of the law . This is the current state of the law. The claim that all maner of violent criminals have access to firearms is pure garbage as shown below. The claim that dealers are not accountable is covered in other sections of the code at the link posted.
From:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
"(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions ; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship ;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
Here ya go, please explain how the poster child of all gun control laws, The Brady Background Check isn't an abysmal failure.
USDOJ, a government agency, Background Check & Firearms Transfer report 2008. Since 1994, 99 million checks, 1.67 million rejections of people attempting to buy from a licensed source. Of those rejections, 58% felons (933k) and a reduction of felons attempting to buy from a licensed source since 1994 by 68%.
USDOJ performed a survey on where felons got there firearms in 1997, 80% street or private buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows and flea markets. That 68% reduction in attempted buys from a licensed dealer equals 68% x 14% = a 9.52% increase in private/street sales to 90% of where felons get their firearms.
The same 2008 report identified between 2000-2008 only 13,024 of those 1.67 million valid rejected people were prosecuted or less than 1%. Wow, that is outstanding how effective that law is enforced to prevent a firearms purchase by an undesirable. Oh that's right, you have all the facts and data to support that the over 1.66 million rejected people didn't then go on to buy a firearm from an unlicensed source right? That really is some myth you have debunked here eh?
Unfortunately for you 'Policy" guys, this trend is endemic to ALL gun control laws.
Yeah, we see how before the 1986 Mc Clure Volkner Act 1986, how gun curio and collectors possessed a type 1 FFL license to prevent the ATF 's successful prosecutions of gun owners who weren't licensed, but sold more than 2 firearms a year. Then in 1994, the ATF increased license fee's by 40 times, automatic and unscheduled inspections of the business, and draconian reporting regulations that if you had a typo, you became a felon.
During the next 7 years, most of the 70% reduction in license holders were those type 1 FFL license holders whose business was their home, let their licenses lapse.
Unintended result, 100's of thousands of licensed dealers who if they hadn't been regulated, taxed and intimidated out of being a license holder, would have willingly documented and reported their sales. Now these people are the street or private sale that make up 90% of the source for undesirables firearms. Selling to those 9 types of people who by law are undesirable gun owners already exists. Yet here we see how unintended consequences of more ineffective common sense regulations were, again!
Public Safety is a fantasy as no matter what you say, what biased jargon or cherry picked facts, YOU CANT GUARANTEE INDIVIDUAL SAFETY. Nor does the government who in 10 separate US Supreme Court rulings have ruled that the US government is not responsible for an individuals safety. If the US Supreme Court is smart enough to understand this, then one must question why you are incapable of understanding this fact!
Yet here you are again, trying to qualify that there are different types of violence, which is rather frightening if one considers that violence is violence, and is not caused by the end result, just classified, aggravated assault, rape, murder , robbery ......
It is frightening because in order for violence to be different or caused by an inanimate object, one must first believe in a Fetish. A belief that an inanimate object has supernatural powers. This fetish is then exasperated into a serious mental illness if you then believe the inanimate object ( guns ) actually can speak and influence the gun owners, eg. they hear voices. This is a practical description of schizophrenia, a well known and serious mental illness that is as dangerous for those afflicted, as it is to people around those afflicted.
One must wonder how truthful a position is that claims scientific data, but fails to reference a single valid study.
The USDOJ, A non biased government agency regularly reports on Gang Activity. The 2008 report identified over 1 million gang members and professional criminals being responsible for up to 80% of violent crime in America. Per the FBI UCR in 2008 that was 1.36 million reported violent crimes and per the USDOJ Victimization report 2007, over 5.2 million unreported violent crimes.
Oh yeah, per the same FBI UCR database in 2008, just over 381,000 of those reported violent crimes involved a firearm, so explain again how your ambition of policy against violence will prevent or reduce these totals of the remaining 979,000 violent crimes reported that didn't involve a firearm?
Your policies do nothing to fix the failed family structure, effectively battle the illicit drug culture, fix the legal systems failures. Your policies frankly don't do much of anything. So please explain why anyone should listen to your message?
Since 1933 there have been laws against the possession of machine guns and explosive ammunition. There has been no study that proves a correlation between gun laws and crime . In fact when the United States invaded Panama and enforced restricted gun use criminals used sharpened sticks to rob others.
The firearms industry is the most regulated business in our country.
States and the District of Columbia that have the most strict laws also have the most crime.
Criminals that commit serious crimes with firearms are often found to have many previous encounters with courts and been allowed to plead down their case.
Strict accountability of criminals for their acts is what we need. But since that is probably not possible given the liberal leanings of our court system arming the law abiding population is the next best thing.
In Switzerland where members of the armed forces are allowed to take their machine guns home so they can respond quickly, they have the lowest crime rate of any other modern county.
Repeating: There has never been a proven correlation between strict gun laws and lower crime.
You are incorrect in saying that there has never been proven a correlation between strict gun laws and lower crime . It's less successful in the United States (and sometimes it's been shown to have a negative correlation, but I suspect that just means the laws were ineffective and crime was rising naturally), but internationally where the laws have been even more strict there is evidence is does curb violent crime.
Your views on Swiss gun policy is overly simplistic and looks over many of the regulations they actually have. Gun ownership is high, but carrying permits for public places if you are off-duty or non- military are very difficult to get; most guns are registered and some ammunition is depending where you buy and the manufacturer; and you can't even keep the ammunition in most guns (there are some confusion based on local canton laws about this though).
To be frank though, many of the laws are not well enforced and they differ so widely between cantons that many times they are not enforced at all if you move between cantons because nobody cares. I don't have stats or anything to support that, but I have a lot of Swiss friends and family who tell me it hasn't changed since I left. I'm actually a dual Swiss / U.S. citizen (silly parents) and I lived most of my life in Switzerland. My grandmother would be pissed if I renounced my Swiss citizenship which is mostly why I keep it, I think she'd prefer I renounce my U.S. citizenship and go to college in Switzerland instead.
Anyway, to my greater point. You can't use Switzerland as a model to say that we don't need regulations because the primary mark of violent crime (in particular gun crime) in developed countries is related to the Gini coefficient (measure of inequality), and the Swiss coefficient is much lower than ours. It's not even poverty levels that imply an abnormal violent gun crime rate, the biggest predictor is inequality. This is even further amplified when the inequality is driven along minority lines, be them race , religion , or something else (which is obviously true of the U.S. in the case of race). This was demonstrated compellingly by a study commissioned by the World Bank which followed the rates in relation to inequality from the 70s to mid 90s. Note, this only applied in developed countries or near-developed countries though since crime is high in many African nations yet inequality is very low (they are all poor etc.).
If you really want to solve gun violence , you need to just fix the massive inequality that exists in this country. That's much more difficult to do though, unfortunately.
My comments were more to the point that mere possession of firearms , even fully automatic ones, does not change crime . Those who make their living in crime will do so regardless of laws. You don't have crime in Switzerland committed by those person's who take their military arms home.
The English tried to ship criminals out of the country. It was called Transportation. Australia was populated with those sent away. That didn't work either.
England's crime is going up since the total ban on firearms just as it is in Australia. They are now attempting to ban knives with a sharp point. (Absolutely true.) Sticks are next.
The person responsible for the original studies that eventually led to the Sullivan law in New York recanted on his death bed. He falsified the study results.
The only place super strict law changed crime was in Franco Spain.
You are responsible for your own protection. Arming those willing to do that is one of the only answers. Unfortunately police are so poorly trained they have on occasion shot the home owner rather than the criminal.
you missed my point entirely. My point was it was income inequality that determines violent crime rates, which is entirely true.
You have a correlation / causation issue. You aren't controlling for factors such as crime is just increasing and is unrelated to gun control , and so may be effective but crime is just overwhelming it. Unsurprisingly, you'll find an increase in income inequality leads to higher crime rates independent of any gun legislation - supporting my view again. Just this year England's gini coefficient hit a record high. In Australia, you are actually confusing homicide percentage / numbers and homicide rate. You'll actually find gun-control has reduced homicide rate (the important figure) in recent years.
You just presume this away based on your own ideological biases. I personally do not know if gun control is effective because the data is too limited to make any conclusions because we cannot properly control for all the factors that could influence crime. Depending on how I want to do the analysis, given my limited data resources, I could make it say whatever I wanted too.
I offer no conclusion, because I am trying to be fair rather than ideological.
I'm personally for limited gun control, since I think repairing income inequality would solve the problem in the long-run, although this does take quit a bit of time given the massive disparity of wealth we have in this country.
I'm curious though, what exactly are the proposals for reducing violent gun crime among gun rights advocates? I've never actually heard an intelligent idea come from that group, I just know they think guns protect them, but that hardily addresses the overall issue of gun violence .
How is it that income inequality/equality, not gun control , leads to an increase in crime , but gun control, not income inequality/equality leads to a decrease in crime? That is very confusing to me. Maybe you could explain that to me, and to John Lott, who has done probably the most extensive studies on this subject anywhere, and shows clear correlation between gun control and higher crime.
In California, I believe is some of the most stringent handgun laws on record. An HSC (Handgun Safety Certificate) is required to purchase a pistol. This is a photo ID issued by our DOJ after passing a background check and a safety/ability test. This HSC is a "permit" required to purchase a handgun. Many misdemeanor convictions prohibit a handgun purchase such as domestic violence, firearm infractions and drug convictions. Also, any handgun ownership transfer must be recorded to the DOJ, yes, even an inter-family transfer. Any handgun brought into California by a new resident must be registered with the DOJ. A large capacity handgun magazine must have been purchased and registered with the DOJ before @2004, and all others are illegal and carry severe penalties as a felony attachment.
Transporting a handgun and ammunition is difficult at best. They must be separated and in locking containers. A destination to show purpose of transporting a handgun must be explained to any officer. A "carry" permit is impossible to obtain for any common law -abiding citizen.
Assault Rifles are illegal unless registered before @1989; but you can't do anything with it if you have one anyway.
Along with a hundred more laws (too many to mention) our government just signed into law restrictions on handgun ammunition. Any purchaser must be fingerprinted and all records kept. Bullets and casings don't have serial numbers (yet) so what good this does is questionable. No ammunition purchases allowed through the mail or Internet.
I am a California native for a half a century and witnessed all of my freedoms I was raised with become illegal, bit-by-bit. Now, if I lost my freedoms from necessity and good cause with even notable results to the positive, I possibly could accept that. But the results are not good.
In California we have some of the most violent gangs in the country, if not the planet. Our crime statistics are frightening. We live behind steel reinforced doors and home surveillance systems. We are reduced to carrying Pepper Spray and walking-sticks for personal protection. You don't make eye-contact with anybody and distance yourself from your neighbors because you don't really know "what" they are. You can no longer offer assistance to a stranded motorist. I had to give up camping because of people being murdered in their sleeping bags, or trailers.
California is a population of victims. Every family I know has been touched by criminal violence, some in horrible ways. We live like this because we no longer have the "right" to defend ourselves. I can thank people like the Brady Campaign and Freedom States Alliance for this fact. So if this is the pay -off that they are looking for, they have succeeded. We live with indefensible fear, every day.