Over at Mother Jones, Artis Curiskis writes about old police guns used to commit crimes:
It took seven long years to pry one staggering number from the hands of the federal government: that 52,529 weapons once owned by police were recovered at crime scenes across the country from 2006 to 2021. In that period, an average of nine cop guns were recovered each day. The public didn’t know it.
Hmmm. That's about 3,000 guns per year. Call it 4,000 in recent years. Somewhere between 500,000 and one million guns are collected each year from crime scenes.¹ This means that police guns account for maybe 0.6% of all guns used in crimes.
There's certainly no justification for trying to cover this up, but at the same time it's hardly a big issue. These guns account for a tiny fraction of all crime guns, and criminals have easy access to guns regardless. It's a little hard to see why either side cared very much.
¹ATF gets about half a million requests each year for gun traces. So there are at least that many guns are recovered from crime scenes. If half of all guns need to be traced, it means about a million guns are recovered each year. This seems like a reasonable range. It's unfortunate that actual numbers don't seem to be available.
Actual numbers aren't available because the ATF is forbidden by right-wing law from using computers for their record keeping.
kevin drum out for blood against his former employer.
Faith leaders in Chicago gathered and marched Thursday and demanded city officials do more to curb gun violence. They say the Johnson administration is failing the city citing the nearly 150 youths who have lost their lives to gun violence, just this year alone.
Only 150. That’s not so many. I’m guessing selling used cop guns isn’t on their list of things they want done.
Anyway… the goal is zero gun crimes. The USA is way ahead of Germany and other civilizations on crime rates. Let’s be like Germany! Even small things make a difference. Plus… it’s just dumb. Can we stop doing dumb things?
The prior owner of a gun should be liable if it's used in a crime.
Just... should be. Because securing weapons is a primary responsibility of ownership.
So you’re penalizing the victim of the theft or burglary?
one would think a boostrapppin' libertarian doof like you would want irresponsible gun ownership penalized.
Libertarian? Never thought of myself as libertarian and don’t think anyone has ever called me that. But Crissa didn’t say anything about irresponsible gun owners. She implied if your gun is stolen and used in a crime you should be prosecuted. The person who stole the gun is the one that broke the law.
a gun left prey to a burgling, i.e. not in a gunsafe, should be a blemish on the owner.
Crissa was absolute in the assertion. There was no equivocation/qualification about the circumstances of the storage of the weapon.
+1
A gun owner is responsible for securing a gun from anyone who would be expected to be in the house (i.e. his/her kids). I don’t need to hide my guns from burglars who break the law and enter my house illegally. They are the criminals. Not me.
You are responsible for the security.
You.
Secure your fucking gun, you ghoul.
The person who could prevent said burglary? Yes.
Should they have less liability if they report it? Sure.
None? No.
If I recall correctly, you own one or more motorcycles. Were someone to steal one of them and use it to run-down and kill a person, should you be held liable? If someone were to break into your garage/toolshed/home and steal a hammer with which they later kill someone, should you be held liable?
motorcycles & hammer are not purpose designed to kill.
Given the enormous differences between a gun, motorcycle and hammer, we all realize how dumb this comparison is.
I hope so, but apparently not.
If someone steals your car and you don't report it or if someone can prove you didn't secure it, you're liable.
The presumption should be on the owner of a weapon to keep it from being used.
If an infectious disease lab has its smallpox stores stolen by terrorists who release it in New York, should the lab be held liable? Why do infectious disease labs even have locks? They're not the criminals!
Literally, I am, if they steal the keys, or if I didn't secure it properly.
Motorcycles are required to come with locks on them, which need to be deactivated every time you want to use them.
Are guns?
Maybe small, but how did they get cop guns? When a cop gun is retired, is it sold off instead of destroyed? If so, do they not do background checks on the purchasers? Were they stolen from cops? If so, why don't we know that? and if a cop is careless enough to get his gun stolen, is he still a cop?
Sure. In the grand scheme of things, it is a drop in the bucket. But considering the source, it is a pretty important drop, because it is hard to imagine an innocent reason for them ending up back in circulation.
Sold by the police department.
Per the MoJo article:
Of course, "many" is a subjective term.
You want to control guns? Let the market do it. Require liability insurance for all guns, just like cars. I'd say a license too but the Supreme Court would probably crap all over that.
The US constitution doesn’t give you the right to own a car.
it was written in 1787. of course the sainted founders did not have the ability to foresee the internal combustion engine.
Of course. But that doesn’t change the fact that it does give us the right to own a gun. I think you’d be hard pressed to put a qualifier on that and require people to buy insurance before they are granted their constitutional right.
The unrestricted right to own a gun free of restrictions is a modern invention that has no basis in the constitution.
Try harder please.
It preserves the right to bear arms, for the purpose of well-regulated militias defending free States.
That's pretty far from a "right to own a gun." There's nothing in there about ownership, or even guns.
And on that second point, nobody thinks that the 2A gives everybody the right to have any armament they desire. Nobody thinks that the amendment prevents governments from restricting access to, say, cluster bombs or rocket launchers or fighter jets or C-4 etc. So there is a very legit question as to what "arms" are.
You may say that it means "guns;" somebody else (a true Originalist, perhaps), might argue that the amendment must be limited to what weapons the Founders were aware of--so, like, dueling pistols, muskets, and sabers or something.
I never said it gives you the right to own any type of weapon. Not sure what your point is. I'm just saying the 2nd amendment has been interpreted in way that gives people the right to own a gun. pjcamp1905 floated the idea of making people purchase insurance before they can own a gun. I was simply pointing out that, in my opinion, that's non-starter because it's infringing on people's constitutional rights, unlike being required to purchase auto insurance. It would be the equivalent of a poll tax before being allowed to vote or being forced to take a comparative religion class before being allowed to attend church.
Bullshit.
You are responsible for your use of your rights.
Your right to travel doesn't give you the right to run someone over.
Ghoul.
You’re not making any sense. Of course the right to drive doesn’t give you the right to run someone over. What does that have to do with anything? Just like your right to own a gun doesn’t give you the right to murder someone.
Try harder with your trolling.
I don't think that insurance requirements are an infringement on a right to bear an arm. Rights are not ludicrously unlimited; the right to free speech doesn't allow you to lie on your taxes, for example, or commit libel or slander or defraud people or wander into a government building singing at the top of your lungs. Same deal with the 2nd Amendment.
Right. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to commit a crime either. But you don't have to pay a fee to be allowed to exercise your free speech.
You do if you want to put it on a billboard, the airwaves, rent a venue...
+1