Cut Crime - cut access to cheap guns

[a_unique_person]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...er-cheap-guns--fewer-criminals-with-guns.html

Violent criminals tend to be not too bright, opportunistic and impulsive. Raising the price of guns removes their access to a cheap weapon, cutting crime.

follow-up research shows that the move singlehandedly reduced the supply of new guns to criminals in the city by 44 per cent. While the shop was selling the handguns, it took 90 days on average before police confiscated them from criminals. Now that the store's cheapest gun costs $350, the average period is five and a half years, says Milton "Mick" Beatovic, the store's co-owner.
"Almost exactly to the date of the change in sales practices, we saw virtually no more of these junk guns being recovered from criminals," says Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who led the new research, published in the Journal of Urban Health (DOI: 10.1007/s11524-006-9073-2).

Makes sense to me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Did they have figures on the theft of expensive guns?

Raising the price "removes access" to the law-abiding, not the criminally-minded.

Unless, of course, the criminally-minded buy it with stolen money.

 

[gtc]

deleted

 

[gtc]

Did they have figures on the theft of expensive guns?

Raising the price "removes access" to the law-abiding, not the criminally-minded.

Unless, of course, the criminally-minded buy it with stolen money.

This seems to be the list of effects to me:

Price of guns go up so criminals need more money to buy a gun.

To maintain existing gun purchase patterns criminals need to:
a) increase their legal revenue.
b) increase their illegal revenue.
c) reduce their purchase of non-gun related items.

Alternatively, they can:
d) go without a gun entirely.
e) reduce the frequency with which they buy a new gun.

Options c through e are clearly reductions in utility.
Option a is a win for society as the economy grows.
Option b increases the risk of detection (option d may have a similiar effect).
Option e increases the probable punishment (as likelihood increases that criminal is connected to more crimes if caught).
Option d reduces the severity of any crime that criminal commits and may deter certain forms of crime. Criminal might switch to knife crime.

The net effect to society will depend on whether the criminal increases their frequency or severity of crime to pay for new guns to a greater extent than the lack of availability of guns reduces the severity and frequency of crimes.

Now there will also be an effect on law abiding citizens who can't afford a more fashionable piece. To that extent the measure is highly regressive. Of course a reduction in poor on poor crime would be progressive.

Does this help?

 

[Zep]

I think the issue is being approached from entirely the wrong perspective. It seems to be an attitude thing, which is much harder to legislate for/against.

 

[gtc]

I think the issue is being approached from entirely the wrong perspective. It seems to be an attitude thing, which is much harder to legislate for/against.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Zep]

Can you elaborate?

This is a derail, and a personal opinion only...

[my_opinion_only]

If you compare the USA and Canada with respect to gun ownership, there seems to be a distinct difference in attitude in each place. There is also a distinct difference in gun-related incidents, notably gun-crime rates, that is very measureable. Even though the actual gun ownership processes and distribution within the communities are roughly similar (i.e. many Canadians buy guns, and hunt and shoot too). So my wet-finger-in-the-wind measure says that it is this difference in some attitude, not any laws, that makes the difference in gun-related incidents.

The attitude difference I see (as an outsider) is between "guns as a basic right" and "guns as an earned priviledge".

Of course, I readily allow this could be all a logical fallacy of ad hoc ergo propter hoc. Or brainwashing.

[/my_opinion_only]

 

[Mephisto]

Violent criminals tend to be not too bright, opportunistic and impulsive. Raising the price of guns removes their access to a cheap weapon, cutting crime.

Makes sense to me.

It made sense to authorities in some U.S. cities too, and there was a "Guns for Money" program instituted whereby $100 would be given for any handgun turned in, no questions asked. The idea was to round up all the "Saturday Night Specials" (small, concealable, low-quality handguns).

What these programs didn't consider at the time was the relatively inexpensive Raven .25 caliber automatic, a really cheap handgun typically sold for around $50. People were buying up all the Raven .25s to trade them in at a profit. The program had opposite effect since the demand for these guns actually went up.

Cheap handguns like the Raven .25 and other small Saturday Night Specials were outlawed in the 70s (if I'm not mistaken), and I understand (through a source I can't cite - a policeman friend of mine) that burglaries immediately shot up, the prime target being privately-owned weapons.

Even IF cutting access to cheap guns was instituted nationally, it's still easy enough for the criminally minded to cross the borders in search of even more dangerous weapons.

After the Brady bill introduced a waiting period for handgun sales, a local reporter wrote an exposé (that landed him in jail) detailing how easy it was to obtain a weapon on the southern U.S. border. He bought and paid for a handgun here in the U.S. (in El Paso, Texas), filled out the required paperwork and proceeded to wait the required time. He then crossed the border into Mexico and for a fraction of the price he paid for his legal handgun, he bought a full-automatic M-16 and crossed BACK into the U.S. (a major crime) just to show it could be done. The Feds traced the M-16 to a lot left in Vietnam when we left in 1975. Thousands upon thousands of small arms were left behind in Vietnam and have apparently made their way around the world via the black market.

The problem is NOT the guns, it's the mentality of criminals who, in a pinch, will swing a club, a knife or a four week old baby.

 

[Tricky]

The problem is NOT the guns, it's the mentality of criminals who, in a pinch, will swing a club, a knife or a four week old baby.

I disagree with this. Criminals are notoriously cowardly. They will prefer the weapon that gives them the greatest safety. In some cases, (not all) they will not commit a crime if they feel they are unsafe, as they would be trying to rob a store using a four-week-old baby.


(For some reason, I am reminded of a joke... big surprise)

Flanagan: O'Hara, you look like the divil himself. What in the name of God happened to ye?
O'Hara: Och, I was in the bed with Murphy's wife, when who should come in but Murphy himself with a murtherin' big shillelagh, and, well he beat the bejeesus out o' me.
Flanagan: Why the ungrateful soul! But dinna ye have somethin' in yer own hand to defend yerself with?
O'Hara: Only Mrs. Murphy's arse. Tis a beautiful thing in itself, but not worth a damn in a fight.

 

[a_unique_person]

To the naysayers, I'm just going on the evidence, as presented in the OP.

 

[Ladewig]

This is a derail, and a personal opinion only...

[my_opinion_only]

If you compare the USA and Canada with respect to gun ownership, there seems to be a distinct difference in attitude in each place. There is also a distinct difference in gun-related incidents, notably gun-crime rates, that is very measureable. Even though the actual gun ownership processes and distribution within the communities are roughly similar (i.e. many Canadians buy guns, and hunt and shoot too). So my wet-finger-in-the-wind measure says that it is this difference in some attitude, not any laws, that makes the difference in gun-related incidents.

The attitude difference I see (as an outsider) is between "guns as a basic right" and "guns as an earned priviledge".

Of course, I readily allow this could be all a logical fallacy of ad hoc ergo propter hoc. Or brainwashing.

[/my_opinion_only]

I'm not convinced. I can't imagine many Americans saying, "I will rob a liquor store tonight and will need some sort of weapon. Ah Ha! I will obtain and use a gun because gun ownership is a basic right as defined by the Bill of Rights." Likewise, the law-abiding citizen who buys a handgun for home protection, the collector who purchases several historical six-guns, or the hobbyist who buys a shotgun to shoot sporting clays on the weekend need not consider the right-vs-priviledge argument as they obtain and use their guns.

 

[Zep]

I'm not convinced. I can't imagine many Americans saying, "I will rob a liquor store tonight and will need some sort of weapon. Ah Ha! I will obtain and use a gun because gun ownership is a basic right as defined by the Bill of Rights." Likewise, the law-abiding citizen who buys a handgun for home protection, the collector who purchases several historical six-guns, or the hobbyist who buys a shotgun to shoot sporting clays on the weekend need not consider the right-vs-priviledge argument as they obtain and use their guns.

I was not attempting to be convincing, really. Merely outlining an attitude variance I believe I have observed. But I may be having my senses fooled!

I think the difference lies in when you talk about removing gun access in some way. In Canada (and the same attitudes have prevailed in Australia, btw), removal of access to handguns (for e.g.) was considered by peoples' representatives to be for the common good and was acceptable for the most part to the whole community - so it happened. In the USA, such a proposal is usually considered a denial of basic citizens' rights, and is resisted most fiercely - fiercely enough to have not happened much at all in some places.

The reality about attitude on the ground here is that guns as a personal defense mechanism are almost unheard of. Not even in homes. Yes, crims have guns, as do many farmers, and the police forces. We have sports shooters and hunters too. We do feel that crime is on the rise these days, and yet our first response is not "I must now buy a gun to stay safe"...that's the attitude difference. I can imagine some may think we are bleeding-heart wimps!

But is either attitude "right"? Not for me to say.

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...er-cheap-guns--fewer-criminals-with-guns.html

Violent criminals tend to be not too bright, opportunistic and impulsive. Raising the price of guns removes their access to a cheap weapon, cutting crime.

Makes sense to me.

The last deer rifle I bought was $310 dollars. That is not cheap. The Glock I have my eye on is priced over $450 dollars. Not cheap. The underground market for guns seems a difficult place to mine for data on pricing, which is where considerable numbers of criminals get their guns. The underground market is well established.

My apartment was broken into in 1988 (while I was gone) and among other things, my Beretta 9mm pistol was stolen. Besides being angry, I was concerned for anyone who did a traffic stop on the dipsticks who broke into my apartment. When I called the cops to report the break in, I immediately gave them, over the phone, a description of the pistol, its serial number, and the fact that it was loaded with a 15 round clip. (Irony: the two were caught a few months later in another break in. Their prints matched the ones taken on my door. The son and nephew of the deputy sheriff. I pressed charges, needless to say, despite an appeal to me by said deputy not to dirty up a young man's record. My reply to that moronity was not polite. )

The cop on the phone advised me that the stolen gun traffic in Texas was such that guns stolen in San Antonio were typically sold in Dallas or Houston, and vice versa. He very much doubted I or he would ever hear about my pistol in town. When I filed the insurance claim, my insurance agent gave me the same explanation.

Twenty years ago, there was an established fence network that moved stolen guns about Texas. I suspect that such enterprises have gotten more sophisticated over time.

DR

 

[Huntster]

The last deer rifle I bought was $310 dollars. That is not cheap....

It is to me. I just bought a Hunting rifle, and I paid just under $700. Lucky I already had a scope for it, or I'd have to drop another $400 to $700.

The Glock I have my eye on is priced over $450 dollars. Not cheap.

It is to me. It must be a smaller model. Even then, for new, that is a pretty good price.

 

[Rob Lister]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...er-cheap-guns--fewer-criminals-with-guns.html

Violent criminals tend to be not too bright, opportunistic and impulsive. Raising the price of guns removes their access to a cheap weapon, cutting crime.




Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to me to, and I'm a strong 2nd-A advocate. Increase cost and you decrease demand. It would be interesting to see an initiative to place a tax on both the wholesale and resale end of guns, just to see what effect it has. I doubt it will decrease the overall crime rate, but I suspect it will decrease the 'drive-by' murder rate to at least some degree. Of course, the tricky part in this experiment is the controls, and keeping it non-political.

So, it might be that placing a X% tax on all gun transactions causes a Y% reduction in gun-deaths. It will also have a Z% impact on the law of unintended consequences.

Interesting study.

 

[jimlintott]

This is a derail, and a personal opinion only...

[my_opinion_only]

If you compare the USA and Canada with respect to gun ownership, there seems to be a distinct difference in attitude in each place. There is also a distinct difference in gun-related incidents, notably gun-crime rates, that is very measureable. Even though the actual gun ownership processes and distribution within the communities are roughly similar (i.e. many Canadians buy guns, and hunt and shoot too). So my wet-finger-in-the-wind measure says that it is this difference in some attitude, not any laws, that makes the difference in gun-related incidents.

The attitude difference I see (as an outsider) is between "guns as a basic right" and "guns as an earned priviledge".

Of course, I readily allow this could be all a logical fallacy of ad hoc ergo propter hoc. Or brainwashing.

[/my_opinion_only]

I will add a couple of my own observations to this. Whether they mean anything or not is left up to you.

Ask a Canadian and an American why they own a gun and you get two different answers. Canuck - "For hunting". American - "For defense".

Second point of difference is that hand guns are bordering on impossible to get. I personally know no one who owns a handgun.

I think there is a difference in attitude but the handgun thing is a glaring difference when you consider how often handguns are involved in crimes in the U.S.

 

[BPSCG]

I suspect a lot of - maybe even most - criminals do not go into a gun store to buy a gun. If they did, they'd have to go through a background check, and if they have any felonies on their records, even the attempt to buy a gun would be a crime, IIRC.

Probably a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy it from your friendly neighborhood gun fence. I have no doubt that if the supply of guns were to be drastically reduced, the price would go up dramatically. Problem is, there are plenty of guns to go around already.

 

[Huntster]

.......I have no doubt that if the supply of guns were to be drastically reduced, the price would go up dramatically. Problem is, there are plenty of guns to go around already.

Nearly an estimated 300 million of them.

How many scumbags? Here's a rough estimate:

Take the recent Katrina debacle. My understanding is that after evacuation alerts were broadcast, some 85% of the city's population left.

Of the 15% who remained, some had logistical, medical, or other reasons/problems for not leaving, but I suspect some didn't want to leave because they fully wanted and intended to loot/misbehave. Let's say less than 5% were premeditated predators.

5% of the U.S. population of 300 million is 10 million. Is approximately 2 million now.

So which would be easier?: confiscating 300 million guns, or putting 3 million scumbags in prison?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Didn't Chris Rock say something like, if you want to cut the number of murders, charge $5,000 for a bullet? You'd really have to hate someone to shoot 'em then.

 

[Ohmer]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...er-cheap-guns--fewer-criminals-with-guns.html

Violent criminals tend to be not too bright, opportunistic and impulsive. Raising the price of guns removes their access to a cheap weapon, cutting crime.

Makes sense to me.

I really don't think this means much unless you look at the overall gun crime in the area. I see nothing in the article that says there were fewer guns crimes committed. It just says that guns from Badger Outdoors were not used in crime as much. That is not the same thing.