
Unlawful gun owners commit 80 percent of gun crimes - dagorlad
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/unlawful-gun-owners-commit-80-percent-gun-crimes
======
elgabogringo
I love the fervor of the poster as I strongly support the 2nd amendment and
find leftist/democrat arguments to be hypocritical...

But... I don't see the relevance to HN and if this were a leftist post I'd
flag it and I want to be intellectually consistent, so... Flagged. Sorry.

If I'm wrong on flagging it, please let me know. Trying to adapt my HN
behavior to the general decorum.

~~~
mikestew
I have strong opinions on guns and gun control, and they likely differ from
yours. But I don't come to HN to debate that topic, whether an article aligns
with my opinions or not. Some I'm with you on flagging. Bring me another
article about yet-another-javascript-framework!

~~~
ryandvm
Fair enough, but does this mean gun enthusiasts should similarly flag articles
about "yet another JavaScript framework"?

I'm not sure HN's algorithms are up to the task of sorting that out...

------
almost
So most crimes are committed with guns stolen from or lost by the legal
owners. Is that what gun rights advocates want to be saying?

Maybe it's because I'm not an American and I've never been to America but this
all just seems strange.

~~~
cdubzzz
This is perhaps why neither side of the debate have picked up on this
research. If you look at the WaPo[0] pie chart[1], it could also be reported
as, "97% of gun crime committed using traceable firearms."

[0]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-
evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-
about-crime/)

[1]
[https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/07/...](https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/07/resp.png)

------
cdubzzz
...in a single U.S. city (Pittsburgh).

This write-up is more about the (lack of) reporting on the research. Here is
the actual relevant WaPo article that is referenced:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-
evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-
about-crime/)

------
revicon
Not sure why this is on hacker news, but regardless, this article doesn't say
much that isn't new. It even mentions specifically that...

"all guns start out as legally purchased weapons but “huge number of them”
fall into the hands of unlawful owners"

And that's the issue. The USA has a massive amount of guns available for legal
purchase, which countries with less gun violence do not have. Some of these
guns make their way into criminal hands and are used in crimes. Why do other
first world countries not have this issue? Because they do not have massive
amounts of guns available for purchase.

Banning legal guns decreases the number of guns that will fall into criminal
hands to be used in crimes. This is what other countries are doing, and it
works. I don't understand the issue with this, I get that shooting is a fun
sport, but people are dying. LOTS of people. Get a new hobby.

~~~
splintercell
America has a lot of guns, guns are ingrained in it's culture, and despite of
having that many guns, it isn't a third world hell hole.

Talking about gun bans in other countries is like trying to convince Australia
to ban Kangaroos based on how it worked in America.

The situation hasn't changed since the times of founding fathers. In
Federalist Paper #46, James Madison was bragging about how because of American
gun ownership, totalitarian governments can never take over America, like they
can do in Europe.

[Reformatted]

>> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the
people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,
to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are
appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. <<

>> Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain,
that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.<<

>> But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local
governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and
direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by
these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be
affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in
Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
<<

>> Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the
suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they
would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power
would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no
longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves
to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to
the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. <<

[http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm](http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm)

~~~
serge2k
Do you really think people in Australia are afraid of totalitarianism?

Do you really guns are going to help, when the real threat is government
overreach and the inaction of the populace? Keep electing "pro 2nd amendment"
politicians who also happen to vote for the patriot act and support NSA
spying.

~~~
splintercell
> Do you really guns are going to help, when the real threat is government
> overreach and the inaction of the populace? Keep electing "pro 2nd
> amendment" politicians who also happen to vote for the patriot act and
> support NSA spying. <

So your logic is, "because politicians have passed Patriot Act and govt spies
through NSA, give up your gun rights"??

I see similar argument being made by other people, "there is no way you will
be able to fight a totalitarian government with your guns", (even if it were
true) the point is that we should give up our guns because we are already
doomed? Isn't that even more reason to fight for gun rights?

Quoting again from Federalist Papers #46, where James Madison responds to the
argument similar to being made by you (you really should read it, because I am
skipping a lot of meat):

>>Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed;
and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it
would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people
on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which,
according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any
country, does not exceed 1/100th part of the whole number of souls; or one
1/25th part of the number able to bear arms.<<

>> This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than
25 or 30 thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near
half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen
from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and
conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. <<

>> It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be
conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best
acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the
British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. <<

~~~
serge2k
> So your logic is, "because politicians have passed Patriot Act and govt
> spies through NSA, give up your gun rights"??

No, my logic is that it's a problem to give up your other rights but throw a
fit about any mention of gun control because "MAH GUNS"!

My argument is also that it's incredible paranoia to talk about how your guns
are going to keep you safe from your government.

Again, do you really think Australians are having trouble sleeping at night
because they are afraid they might wake up and "Oh, military rule. Guess we'll
just go with that then".

~~~
splintercell
> No, my logic is that it's a problem to give up your other rights but throw a
> fit about any mention of gun control because "MAH GUNS"! My argument is also
> that it's incredible paranoia to talk about how your guns are going to keep
> you safe from your government. <

I am sorry, but I refuse to believe that you're participating in this thread
because you care so much about our other rights. You don't, period.

Every other argument you're making(like bringing up Australia) betrays your
sentiment.

I don't want to give any of my rights, but I DEFINITELY don't want to give my
right to keep and bear arms nor my first amendment rights.

> Again, do you really think Australians are having trouble sleeping at night
> because they are afraid they might wake up and "Oh, military rule. Guess
> we'll just go with that then". <

Let them sleep peacefully. I don't give a crap. If you live in America, then
move to Australia. If you already live in Australia then sleep peacefully
there.

As far as I am concerned, the healthy skepticism about the government is the
best thing about America.

------
DefaultUserHN
Instead of tackling legal gun sale, the government should focus more on taking
down the illegal black market gun sale.

~~~
galacticpony
The overwhelming majority of guns on the black market have been sold legally
at one point. Obviously, legal gun sales are much easier to limit than illegal
ones. How _would_ you tackle illegal sales?

The same statistic probably applies to countries with stricter gun laws, it's
the sheer amount of weapons available that make the difference. The US gun
laws have created a flood of weapons into black markets, especially in South
America, where the Mafia is often armed better than the police.

It's safe to say that this development cannot be reversed at this point, but
it can still be curbed.

~~~
ianbicking
Hold the legal owner liable for anything done with the gun?

Secondarily, this would lead to insurance on gun ownership, which would lead
to insurance companies rewarding responsible gun ownership with lower rates
and punish irresponsible actors.

~~~
galacticpony
This implies that gun ownership can be reliably tracked, which is not the case
today, though certainly possible in theory.

You basically want to increase legal liabilities (which already exist) to an
extreme, but you will then have trouble finding any insurance company that is
willing to cover the kinds of damages that can be caused by guns at a rate
affordable to an individual.

Either of these things will require legislation that will receive massive
pushback from the gun lobby. In a country where even basic background checks
or limiting of certain weapon types hasn't been realized, your ideas seem
almost utopian.

Having said that, I don't disagree in principle.

~~~
jyounker
Switzerland seems to have this one nailed. Both parties are required by law to
have documentation of a firearm sale, and that documentation must be retained
for ten years. If you don't have control of the weapon and you don't have
documentation then you're in trouble. And I suspect you insurance won't cover
any costs if you're in violation of the law.

------
jyounker
If I recall correctly most gun crimes are committed with firearms purchased
from a small minority of dealers (<5%?). As such this article and the research
it reports upon really says nothing new.

~~~
jyounker
Aslso, please correct me if I am wrong in what I have just said.

