Guns are the problem?

[zorq]

Your link doesn't distinguish between dirty and clean guns. Clean guns on the street run at a premium. Dirty guns are going to be dirt cheep. Only idiots will risk someone else's murder getting pinned on them.

Maybe read my article too.

If anything your article indicates that easy access to guns IS a major problem. This undercuts your OP. The white market IS the primary source for black market guns. Criminals can't steal or "find" guns that law abiding citizens don't have access to.

Junkie steals gun, junkie sells gun. That greatly drives down the street price of guns.

Thug wants a clean gun unassociated with their name... they pay their "friend" to buy one for them from a dealer ... for a premium. That's a markup.

Nothing in your article suggests that blackmarket guns in the US are typically lower in price than retail. My article suggests the opposite.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your link doesn't distinguish between dirty and clean guns. Clean guns on the street run at a premium. Dirty guns are going to be dirt cheep. Only idiots will risk someone else's murder getting pinned on them.

Maybe read my article too.

If anything your article indicates that easy access to guns IS a major problem. This undercuts your OP. The white market IS the primary source for black market guns. Criminals can't steal or "find" guns that law abiding citizens don't have access to.

Junkie steals gun, junkie sells gun. That greatly drives down the street price of guns.

Thug wants a clean gun unassociated with their name... they pay their "friend" to buy one for them from a dealer ... for a premium. That's a markup.

Nothing in your article suggests that blackmarket guns in the US are typically lower in price than retail. My article suggests the opposite.

Not to mention that junkie had to steal the gun from someone who bought it legally and secured it poorly.

Insurance liability for what is done with your gun, following a theft or sale, would address both issues.

Black market guns, necessarily, originate in the legal market.

 

[Gun Nut]

E.g., Brazil.

Brazil has massive amount of unregulated guns. The country is controlled by organized crime with aid from a corrupt government. Are you dumb enough to suggest that Brazilian street gangs are 3D printing their guns at home?
Instead of making fallacious comparisons to third world countries, try other first world democracies like virtually all countries in western Europe where there is some semblance of rule of law and democracy. Their crime rates are just as high or near that of the US, yet their murder rates are 10 times lower, as are their rates of using a gun during a crime. That's b/c despite having as many criminals, and despite those criminals not having access to guns from an unregulated legal market like the US, and despite have all the same ability and tech to make their own guns, their criminals are not doing it b/c it's just not a plausible thing that your average criminal is going to do.

the 3D printing is just one way to produce that one smallish part... 3D printing an entire gun (to get through a metal detector) is not what I was talking about. One can simply hammer, fold, weld, cast, whatever... that one single part that is the only regulated (i.e. background check needed to buy) part.

 

[ronburgundy]

Very few guns are smuggled into the US. So other than legal gun purchases being used to funnel into criminal hands, the only possible source of crime guns is theft from dealers and theft from those who legally bought the guns from a retailer. Those thefts would always be reported prior to gun winding up at a crime scene (guns that are only claimed "stolen" after they turn up at crime scenes are those resold by legal owners trying to cover their ass). The number of guns legit reported stolen prior to use in a crime are a fraction of the number of guns entering the black market each year, so the only logical possibility is that most of them are the result of legal dealers and buyers selling them to criminals, which they can legally do since there is no way to prove they knew the person was a criminal.

And what's the source for the number of guns reported stolen? Who is even keeping track?

The ATF investigates the source of guns being trafficked in the black market.


"they[Federal Firearms Liscensed dealer] were associated with nearly half of the total number of trafficked firearms documented during the two year period"

"Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations. Almost half of all the trafficking investigations involved straw purchasers." "Straw purchasers buy guns for other unlicensed sellers, criminals, and juveniles."

"Unlicensed sellers were a focus of about a fifth of the trafficking investigations." "Unlicensed sellers buy guns with the purpose of reselling them."

"Firearms stolen from FFLs, residences, and common carriers were involved in over a quarter of the trafficking investigations."

And note that "stolen" from residences includes guns stolen from fellow criminals who often bought their gun via corrupt dealers, straw purchases from legal gun owners, and unlicensed sellers who also sell legally under current law.

In sum, less than 25% of guns trafficked in the black market got there by being stolen from someone who possessed the gun legally. Most of the rest get are funneled via retail sales from legal dealers to gun owners who are buy them directly for particular third party criminals or buy them in order to resell them to traffickers, all of which is legal under current law unless it can be proven that the reseller knew they would selling to a criminal (which cannot be proven unless it's a sting operation).

And there's no requirement to report a theft, if you're not going to file an insurance claim there's little reason to report it.

Someone steals a $300-$1000 piece of property from you, most likely by breaking into your property while stealing other things and you have no reason to report it? A deadly weapon that was stolen from you by a criminal (by definition) and thus may wind up used to murder someone, and you have no reason to report it? That's some stunningly disingenuous nonsense even by your standards. The only reason people wouldn't report a stolen gun was b/c they themselves are a criminal and don't want to draw attention of the police.

Also, 11 states make it a crime not to report a stolen gun, but yeah that is yet another Federal law that that is needed: Jail time for not reporting a gun that has been missing for 60 days, and automatic liability for any crime your gun is used in if you fail to report it stolen.
Combined with registration of every gun, annual proof of possession, and a total ban on all gun exchanges outside of licensed channels with full background checks, reporting requirements for theft will make the current widespread practice of trafficking by thousands of "law abiding gun buyers" an high risk proposition with likely jail time. Yet it would have no major impact on an actual law abiding gun owners who are not engaged in trafficking to criminals, beyond the same impact of car registration.

 

[ronburgundy]

E.g., Brazil.

Brazil has massive amount of unregulated guns. The country is controlled by organized crime with aid from a corrupt government. Are you dumb enough to suggest that Brazilian street gangs are 3D printing their guns at home?
Instead of making fallacious comparisons to third world countries, try other first world democracies like virtually all countries in western Europe where there is some semblance of rule of law and democracy. Their crime rates are just as high or near that of the US, yet their murder rates are 10 times lower, as are their rates of using a gun during a crime. That's b/c despite having as many criminals, and despite those criminals not having access to guns from an unregulated legal market like the US, and despite have all the same ability and tech to make their own guns, their criminals are not doing it b/c it's just not a plausible thing that your average criminal is going to do.

the 3D printing is just one way to produce that one smallish part... 3D printing an entire gun (to get through a metal detector) is not what I was talking about. One can simply hammer, fold, weld, cast, whatever... that one single part that is the only regulated (i.e. background check needed to buy) part.

Doesn't matter, the evidence definitively shows that almost zero criminals are getting their guns this way, which is why the numerous criminals in comparable modern democracies who have minimal access to manufactured guns don't have guns, b/c buying a manufactured gun is the only way most criminals would bother obtaining a gun, even when that isn't a viable option. Part of it is that it just isn't plausible to manufacture guns this way on a large enough scale to supply many guns without drawing attention and getting caught. The major gun manufacturers create tens of millions of guns per year right out in the open that get bought and sold right out in the open and thus a large % of them get easily siphoned off into the black market by the same initial exchanges that all legal gun possession is obtained, which gives perfect cover. No underground do it yourself gun making system could ever possibly get away with supplying the black market with more than a tiny fraction of the guns that the legal manufactures, legal dealers, and legal gun buyers do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thug wants a clean gun unassociated with their name... they pay their "friend" to buy one for them from a dealer ... for a premium. That's a markup.

Nothing in your article suggests that blackmarket guns in the US are typically lower in price than retail. My article suggests the opposite.

Not to mention that junkie had to steal the gun from someone who bought it legally and secured it poorly.

Insurance liability for what is done with your gun, following a theft or sale, would address both issues.

Black market guns, necessarily, originate in the legal market.

In other words, it's really about taking guns away from the law abiding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the 3D printing is just one way to produce that one smallish part... 3D printing an entire gun (to get through a metal detector) is not what I was talking about. One can simply hammer, fold, weld, cast, whatever... that one single part that is the only regulated (i.e. background check needed to buy) part.

The thing is 3D printed metal parts are not as strong as properly cast parts, nor can smooth curves be made. When you're playing with explosives strength matters!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The ATF investigates the source of guns being trafficked in the black market.


"they[Federal Firearms Liscensed dealer] were associated with nearly half of the total number of trafficked firearms documented during the two year period"

"Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations. Almost half of all the trafficking investigations involved straw purchasers." "Straw purchasers buy guns for other unlicensed sellers, criminals, and juveniles."

"Unlicensed sellers were a focus of about a fifth of the trafficking investigations." "Unlicensed sellers buy guns with the purpose of reselling them."

"Firearms stolen from FFLs, residences, and common carriers were involved in over a quarter of the trafficking investigations."

Note that there's a big problem with this data--they are following a thread and seeing where it leads. You start with a gun bought from a burglar and the investigation goes nowhere. You start with a gun diverted by a corrupt FFL and it leads to a lot more guns. The result is guns from upstream sources will be way overrepresented in the data.

Someone steals a $300-$1000 piece of property from you, most likely by breaking into your property while stealing other things and you have no reason to report it? A deadly weapon that was stolen from you by a criminal (by definition) and thus may wind up used to murder someone, and you have no reason to report it? That's some stunningly disingenuous nonsense even by your standards. The only reason people wouldn't report a stolen gun was b/c they themselves are a criminal and don't want to draw attention of the police.

Filing an insurance claim for $1,000 would be stupid for me--in the long run it's going to cost me substantially more than that. Police reports over simple burglaries are basically about documentation for one's insurance, why waste the time?

Also, 11 states make it a crime not to report a stolen gun, but yeah that is yet another Federal law that that is needed: Jail time for not reporting a gun that has been missing for 60 days, and automatic liability for any crime your gun is used in if you fail to report it stolen.

Yeah, if it's a crime to not report it you report it, like you report lesser traffic accidents even though the cops do absolutely nothing about them.

Combined with registration of every gun, annual proof of possession, and a total ban on all gun exchanges outside of licensed channels with full background checks, reporting requirements for theft will make the current widespread practice of trafficking by thousands of "law abiding gun buyers" an high risk proposition with likely jail time. Yet it would have no major impact on an actual law abiding gun owners who are not engaged in trafficking to criminals, beyond the same impact of car registration.

<Hits ronburgundy with a sledgehammer>

What's the problem, no major impact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the 3D printing is just one way to produce that one smallish part... 3D printing an entire gun (to get through a metal detector) is not what I was talking about. One can simply hammer, fold, weld, cast, whatever... that one single part that is the only regulated (i.e. background check needed to buy) part.

Doesn't matter, the evidence definitively shows that almost zero criminals are getting their guns this way, which is why the numerous criminals in comparable modern democracies who have minimal access to manufactured guns don't have guns, b/c buying a manufactured gun is the only way most criminals would bother obtaining a gun, even when that isn't a viable option. Part of it is that it just isn't plausible to manufacture guns this way on a large enough scale to supply many guns without drawing attention and getting caught. The major gun manufacturers create tens of millions of guns per year right out in the open that get bought and sold right out in the open and thus a large % of them get easily siphoned off into the black market by the same initial exchanges that all legal gun possession is obtained, which gives perfect cover. No underground do it yourself gun making system could ever possibly get away with supplying the black market with more than a tiny fraction of the guns that the legal manufactures, legal dealers, and legal gun buyers do.

Remember that mass shooter that looked like it was finally a case where universal background checks would have helped? The gun he bought was one of those home jobs that you say almost zero criminals use.

 

[Jarhyn]

Thug wants a clean gun unassociated with their name... they pay their "friend" to buy one for them from a dealer ... for a premium. That's a markup.

Nothing in your article suggests that blackmarket guns in the US are typically lower in price than retail. My article suggests the opposite.

Not to mention that junkie had to steal the gun from someone who bought it legally and secured it poorly.

Insurance liability for what is done with your gun, following a theft or sale, would address both issues.

Black market guns, necessarily, originate in the legal market.

In other words, it's really about taking guns away from the law abiding.

Bullshit and straw-man. It's not about taking them away from the law abiding, it's about making the law reasonably able to allow achievement of the ends of preventing people from only pretending to follow the law. It is about giving the law teeth to prevent guns from entering the black market.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, it's really about taking guns away from the law abiding.

Bullshit and straw-man. It's not about taking them away from the law abiding, it's about making the law reasonably able to allow achievement of the ends of preventing people from only pretending to follow the law. It is about giving the law teeth to prevent guns from entering the black market.

You admit black market guns start out in the legal market. It's not realistically possible to stop them from going over to the illegal market other than by removing the legal market.

 

[Jarhyn]

In other words, it's really about taking guns away from the law abiding.

Bullshit and straw-man. It's not about taking them away from the law abiding, it's about making the law reasonably able to allow achievement of the ends of preventing people from only pretending to follow the law. It is about giving the law teeth to prevent guns from entering the black market.

You admit black market guns start out in the legal market. It's not realistically possible to stop them from going over to the illegal market other than by removing the legal market.

Bullshit, and ignoring what multiple people have already pointed out as reasonable measures to accomplish prevention of guns entering the black market:

Registration

Insurance

Liability for illegal use

Secure storage requirements

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You admit black market guns start out in the legal market. It's not realistically possible to stop them from going over to the illegal market other than by removing the legal market.

Bullshit, and ignoring what multiple people have already pointed out as reasonable measures to accomplish prevention of guns entering the black market:

Registration

Insurance

Liability for illegal use

Secure storage requirements

Insurance would be quite expensive because it's a matter of transferring the costs of illegal gun use to legal gun owners. You've got something like 10,000 murders/year, figure a million-dollar wrongful-death payout and you're talking $10 billion/year, this would end up being a few hundred dollars per gun owner per year--despite no wrongdoing. And what about all those injured but not killed?

In the rest of the market insurance does not cover illegal use. This is simply a scheme to make guns unaffordable to the masses.

And I have no problem with reasonable secure storage requirements. However, once again this is an attempt to deny them to many people by requiring substantial gun safes--thus denying them to anyone without a ground floor. If the safe must be bolted down it's denying them to almost all renters.

 

[Jarhyn]

You admit black market guns start out in the legal market. It's not realistically possible to stop them from going over to the illegal market other than by removing the legal market.

Bullshit, and ignoring what multiple people have already pointed out as reasonable measures to accomplish prevention of guns entering the black market:

Registration

Insurance

Liability for illegal use

Secure storage requirements

Insurance would be quite expensive because it's a matter of transferring the costs of illegal gun use to legal gun owners. You've got something like 10,000 murders/year, figure a million-dollar wrongful-death payout and you're talking $10 billion/year, this would end up being a few hundred dollars per gun owner per year--despite no wrongdoing. And what about all those injured but not killed?

In the rest of the market insurance does not cover illegal use. This is simply a scheme to make guns unaffordable to the masses.

And I have no problem with reasonable secure storage requirements. However, once again this is an attempt to deny them to many people by requiring substantial gun safes--thus denying them to anyone without a ground floor. If the safe must be bolted down it's denying them to almost all renters.

More bullshit!

The POINT is to transfer the costs of illegal gun use, specifically, to those who act in ways that allow guns to traverse into illegal markets. The impact only hits irresponsible owners, because insurance premiums get calculated based on risk: if someone acts in ways that increase liability, they are expected to pay for that liability.

The insurance premiums, and the desire to keep them low, is the incentive to not buy guns and have them get "stolen" or disappear.

Those premiums would, specifically, end up being charged to the owners who buy lots of guns, for the sake of illegal/straw sales. Because the payouts happen against the policy of the original purchaser.

As to secure storage requirements, a lot has to do with the number of guns and the way they are stored. A wall-mounted steel gun rack (through-wall bolts) with a guarded-hasp lock would be sufficient for most policies, I would imagine.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Guns aren't THE problem. Guns are a problem.

 

[PyramidHead]

Guns aren't THE problem. Guns are a problem.

Why there are so many shootings in America, according to the left, the center, and the right:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Insurance would be quite expensive because it's a matter of transferring the costs of illegal gun use to legal gun owners. You've got something like 10,000 murders/year, figure a million-dollar wrongful-death payout and you're talking $10 billion/year, this would end up being a few hundred dollars per gun owner per year--despite no wrongdoing. And what about all those injured but not killed?

In the rest of the market insurance does not cover illegal use. This is simply a scheme to make guns unaffordable to the masses.

And I have no problem with reasonable secure storage requirements. However, once again this is an attempt to deny them to many people by requiring substantial gun safes--thus denying them to anyone without a ground floor. If the safe must be bolted down it's denying them to almost all renters.

More bullshit!

The POINT is to transfer the costs of illegal gun use, specifically, to those who act in ways that allow guns to traverse into illegal markets. The impact only hits irresponsible owners, because insurance premiums get calculated based on risk: if someone acts in ways that increase liability, they are expected to pay for that liability.

The insurance premiums, and the desire to keep them low, is the incentive to not buy guns and have them get "stolen" or disappear.

Those premiums would, specifically, end up being charged to the owners who buy lots of guns, for the sake of illegal/straw sales. Because the payouts happen against the policy of the original purchaser.

As to secure storage requirements, a lot has to do with the number of guns and the way they are stored. A wall-mounted steel gun rack (through-wall bolts) with a guarded-hasp lock would be sufficient for most policies, I would imagine.

Except you can't spread it to the risky ones because the loss rate is too low. We see the same thing in shipping insurance for tramps--premiums are unrelated to how risky the ship is.

 

[Jarhyn]

Insurance would be quite expensive because it's a matter of transferring the costs of illegal gun use to legal gun owners. You've got something like 10,000 murders/year, figure a million-dollar wrongful-death payout and you're talking $10 billion/year, this would end up being a few hundred dollars per gun owner per year--despite no wrongdoing. And what about all those injured but not killed?

In the rest of the market insurance does not cover illegal use. This is simply a scheme to make guns unaffordable to the masses.

And I have no problem with reasonable secure storage requirements. However, once again this is an attempt to deny them to many people by requiring substantial gun safes--thus denying them to anyone without a ground floor. If the safe must be bolted down it's denying them to almost all renters.

More bullshit!

The POINT is to transfer the costs of illegal gun use, specifically, to those who act in ways that allow guns to traverse into illegal markets. The impact only hits irresponsible owners, because insurance premiums get calculated based on risk: if someone acts in ways that increase liability, they are expected to pay for that liability.

The insurance premiums, and the desire to keep them low, is the incentive to not buy guns and have them get "stolen" or disappear.

Those premiums would, specifically, end up being charged to the owners who buy lots of guns, for the sake of illegal/straw sales. Because the payouts happen against the policy of the original purchaser.

As to secure storage requirements, a lot has to do with the number of guns and the way they are stored. A wall-mounted steel gun rack (through-wall bolts) with a guarded-hasp lock would be sufficient for most policies, I would imagine.

Except you can't spread it to the risky ones because the loss rate is too low. We see the same thing in shipping insurance for tramps--premiums are unrelated to how risky the ship is.

Except we aren't talking about "loss rates". For ever gun used in an illegal action, that gun originated in the legal market. There is a seller who originated the "last legal sale" of the weapon, and a buyer who did the same. The seller's payments go up. The buyer's payments go up.

Clean black market guns go WAY up in price because the liability is higher; any behavioral models which corolate to later illegal use are targeted. And because as you say, few guns go missing already, we have distributed the liability widely for the other such events.

Insurance would drive practices that fundamentally disable the transition of guns to the black market.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except you can't spread it to the risky ones because the loss rate is too low. We see the same thing in shipping insurance for tramps--premiums are unrelated to how risky the ship is.

Except we aren't talking about "loss rates". For ever gun used in an illegal action, that gun originated in the legal market. There is a seller who originated the "last legal sale" of the weapon, and a buyer who did the same. The seller's payments go up. The buyer's payments go up.

Clean black market guns go WAY up in price because the liability is higher; any behavioral models which corolate to later illegal use are targeted. And because as you say, few guns go missing already, we have distributed the liability widely for the other such events.

Insurance would drive practices that fundamentally disable the transition of guns to the black market.

The point is that the rate of loss is low enough that whether you engage in risky or safe practices will have no effect on your premium. Thus you're asking legal gun owners to pay the huge bill of gun crime.

Can I collect from you for the uninsured bastard that hit me? (Admittedly the statue of limitations is long expired.)

 

[Jarhyn]

Except you can't spread it to the risky ones because the loss rate is too low. We see the same thing in shipping insurance for tramps--premiums are unrelated to how risky the ship is.

Except we aren't talking about "loss rates". For ever gun used in an illegal action, that gun originated in the legal market. There is a seller who originated the "last legal sale" of the weapon, and a buyer who did the same. The seller's payments go up. The buyer's payments go up.

Clean black market guns go WAY up in price because the liability is higher; any behavioral models which corolate to later illegal use are targeted. And because as you say, few guns go missing already, we have distributed the liability widely for the other such events.

Insurance would drive practices that fundamentally disable the transition of guns to the black market.

The point is that the rate of loss is low enough that whether you engage in risky or safe practices will have no effect on your premium. Thus you're asking legal gun owners to pay the huge bill of gun crime.

Can I collect from you for the uninsured bastard that hit me? (Admittedly the statue of limitations is long expired.)

The uninsured bastard that shoots you didn't get his gun from a legal source: if he did, the fact it was no longer insured would mean that it would have been taken away.

The person who DID get that gun from a legal source would pay higher premiums on guns they claim to continue to own. Perhaps they would no longer be able to but guns at all depending on the circumstances. The seller's who sold those guns, especially when they sell many guns that end up falling out of visibility, would then ALSO pay higher premiums.

You are claiming the "loss rate" is low. It is not: it is high enough to account for ALL the illegal guns on the street, which accounts for MOST of gun crime.

Further, this assumes that the insurance company does not sue and recover from the straw seller's for breach of policy: that the owner is not still held liable; insurance doesn't cover criminal acts of the insured, including to give a gun to someone who does not hold proof of insurance or failure to disclose the transfer; if they fail to disclose, they get their gun taken away, and if they don't have it, they just committed a crime, have ruined their ability to pass a background check, and opened themselves up to personal liability.

Nobody wants that, so as a result, few people will continue allowing their guns to enter the black market, and the people who do own guns legally will be sure to properly secure them.