One would assume, right? It seems like the sort of thing that would happen, but it doesn’t seem to play out that way. I asked the director of our city’s Gang Reduction Strategy office, as well as a regular police officer. The GRS guy says he’s uncertain but suspects they do, but that I should ask the police. The regular officer says they usually trace the gun through the ATF’s database, but the trail typically goes cold after the initial purchase, as used firearms change hands so frequently. They do not typically ask the suspect, for whatever reason. I think I’m going to ask the DA if their office does anything like that.
In my memory I conflated that with an ATF report mentioned in the same context. But I agree with your questions about how the ATF is crunching the numbers (maybe 60% of all firearms purchases come from 1% of dealers, as you suggest). The ATF doesn’t seem to address those numbers in the report, but they do seem convinced that straw purchasers are responsible for a lot of the firearms finding their way to criminals. Also, the report was from 2000, and a LOT has changed in the landscape of firearms dealers since then.
If you think I’m arguing that our system isn’t fundamentally broken, you are deeply mistaken. My argument, carrying forward your drug war analogy is that some shops are more akin to the violent neighborhood kingpin, sure taking them out will mean essentially nothing on a macro scale, but it can make a huge difference in an area. Chuck’s and similar shops aren’t more convenient than other shops with less than 10% as many guns recovered at crime scenes. And while someone can easily jump 1 shop down the line, not every shop will look the other way at obvious straw buyers and disrupting the easiest purchases matters. Because as much as I want a grand comprehensive gun solution, I don’t think we politically have that in the cards in the short term. I think we can manage the political will to close down the worst x% of offenders. Here’s one of the Chicago reports. It isn’t the one I was thinking of, but it is the same general material. Chicago Gun Trace Report 2017 | PDF | Bureau Of Alcohol | Gun Violence In The United States
that is the opposite of what i’m saying. i used that example precisely because it was a proven fallacy and a red herring from the war on drugs and used to prop up racist policing policies and class discrimination. Incredibly damaging to so many communities and so misguided, we can do better with guns than our early mistakes with drugs.
again, my main problem with these talking points are they:
would have zero impact
are red herring designed to prop up business as usual and undermine actual change
…so they are more damaging than helpful. going further doesn’t help.
want it harder? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
that data shows exactly what i’m asserting. yes chucks was merely place of convenience for the straw buyers, that’s all they were in the sea of dots, unless regulations change. one pox isn’t the sickness, and scratching it won’t help.
The data you posted doesn’t link through to anything regarding why certain outlets were chosen. It just shows general patterns on ownership nationally. When a store is turning up at rates double what any other store in the data does and ten times what other stores in its immediate vicinity does, then yes it is reasonable to assume that actual substantive difference would be made by pulling their license. For another analogy consider food processing. US standards are lax broadly, but we know that some producers are particularly egregious. Clamping down on the most outrageous offenders isn’t enough to fix the system, but it stops the additional harm they do. That’s exactly why there has been a huge push for clear tracking. As far as the idea that taking steps props up the broken system, I’ve generally found that not to be the case. When a society starts taking steps to solve a problem they tend to be willing to actually take steps to solve it more broadly.
no. no it does not. that is making the false assumptions:
that the store had any part in anything that happens after the sale
didn’t comply with current regulations
that the resellers couldn’t just as easily go to any other red dot on that map if one was shut
even worse it is specifically part of a pro-gun anti-regulation set of racist talking points designed to selectively police certain neighborhoods and people over others, and shift the focus and the conversation away from meaningful national gun regulation reform. i already pointed that out specifically and you still doubled back to it. we really don’t need to repeat the worst mistakes made in the war on drugs and fall into the same traps blindly.
confusing resellers and producers isn’t helping the illusion that this is in any way a remotely valid argument. it isn’t. we know where the big holes are and only regulatory changes can close them.
this thread is about the fact that most illegal guns cross state lines, not selectively targeting certain neighborhoods in chicago or getting unwittingly caught up in the internal war between the usa gun manufacturers trying to manipulate their political clout against each other for their own benefit. lets not be their puppet here on this board, lets not fall trap to their talking points, we can do better. that’s my point.
@Tim_Carpenter wrote: “Gun laws are very effective at achieving their intended goals in the state of Hawaii for some strange reason.”
Well, Tim:
Gun Crimes Are Rising In Hawaii, But Still Below Historic Levels
Violent crimes involving firearms have risen 24 percent in the last four years. Many of the guns, prosecutors say, were stolen.
That’s a good article. It points out that there isn’t a gun-based crime wave going on in Hawaii, gun crimes are in fact down from historical highs, the extremely strict gun ownership laws are being properly maintained, and yet despite all that pesky regulation, legal gun ownership has more than tripled.
Hawaii is definitely a lesson in how to do it better.
“While the number of times a gun was used during a violent crime in Hawaii has grown by a third since 2000, legal gun ownership in Hawaii has soared from 13,617 guns registered in 2000 to 40,635 in 2017.
Perrone and others say a rise in legal gun ownership has nothing to do with crime trends here because the background check is so extensive.”
That’s quite a logical leap on the part of Perrone, and betrays a somewhat Pollyannish take on American gun culture.
unlike guns, killing people isn’t their designed purpose, it is an unfortunate occurrence of something going wrong.
even so that potential is why they are highly regulated and have to be actively licensed and registered and only operated by people who have passed tests and checks and also have a license in good standing. even still most places require additional insurances be carried to help cover expenses and damages. we require additional special licenses for operating any special class of vehicle. we do everything we can to mitigate their impact, like limit speed, requiring airbags and seatbelts, restrict operating under any influence, restricting to those that pass vision tests, the ability to own one can be revoked, etc. etc.
the costs are high, but we only bear them because of the incredible utility of motorized vehicles, otherwise they’d be outlawed. even so we constantly look for better safer alternatives. guns offer no such crucial utility. also the danger level comparison is a fallacy, cars aren’t nearly as deadly. if people used guns as frequently and commonly as cars, in all the same places…ffs.
Just imagine an “Interstate” shooting range, with hundreds of thousands of people shooting an average of 45 minutes per day, 5 days a week, in the same place…
We’ve got a Colt 1911 jammed on the shoulder of I-45 backing things up all the way to the river, and you might want to steer clear of State Range 12 Gauge, as a newby with a Mossberg is slowing things down showing off the engravings.
@Ryuthrowsstuff wrote: “You’d figure something with such obvious interstate commerce issues would require federal oversight. Like the constitution says.”
Quote the provision of the U.S. Constitution that actually authorizes the government to “regulate” arms and their ownership, Ryut.
This should help you with that:
The Constitution of the United States, The Bill of Rights & All Amendments
How about the part where it says “a well regulated militia” ? This implies oversight and regulations by some organization. “Militia” implies a governmental agency / organization that has the authority to pass rules and regulations.
Seems pretty clear to me. but IANAL.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
The constitution does not explicitly lay out what and when and how things may be regulated and by whom in easy peasy categories and detailed specifics. There are multiple clauses that form the root of congress’s regulatory powers, and the commerce clause is one of the most important.
But one of the clearest and most direct things to come out of the commerce clause is: when issues of interstate commerce or interaction undermine the individual states’ ability to regulate, enforce regulation, or states rights. It is the federal government’s job to step in and remove those conflicts by issuing regulations that apply across all states.
Fire arms are a classic example of this. As it stands right now states like New York are seeing their ability and right to regulate the sale and possession of fire arms undermined by the policies of neighboring states.
Which part of the constitution explicitly bars the federal government from regulating fire arms?
