There’s More To Reducing Gun Violence Than Expanding Background Checks.

If there’s one strategy to reduce gun violence on which just about everyone agrees, it’s expanding FBI-NICS background checks beyond the initial sale to make it more difficult for guns to wind up in the ‘wrong hands.’  The assumption behind this strategy is the idea that if every time a gun moves from one person to another, a background check would identify people whose behavior put them in one of those ‘prohibited’ categories (e.g., felon, habitual drug user, etc.) which has always been an indication for criminal use of a gun.

laws             Behind this assumption lies another assumption, the idea that most of the guns that eventually end up in the hands of the bad guys get there because someone with a clean record buys the gun, knowing that he or she is planning to give or sell the gun to someone who can’t pass a background check and, hence, can’t be the initial purchaser of the gun.  When such a purchase occurs, it is referred to as a ‘straw’ sale, and if the buyer or the person to whom the buyer gives the gun then sells it to someone else, it is referred to as gun ‘trafficking;’ these two behaviors – straw sales and gun trafficking – usually considered to be the way that most guns get into the ‘wrong’ hands.

There have been many studies, too numerous to mention here, which show that a majority of guns picked up at crime scenes come from some location other than the actual scene of the crime, often not just another city but from another state.  New York’s AG, Eric Schneiderman, issued a report which showed that of nearly 46,000 crime guns recovered in the state between 2010 and 2015, nearly three-quarters came from other states, the bulk from states located on Interstate 95, which happens to be the most direct route from gun-rich states like Georgia and Florida up to New York.

The problem with data which shows the origin of crime guns, both in New York and elsewhere, is that since only the first gun transaction can be traced in most states (although 18 states have extended NICS checks to handgun sales, or all gun show sales or all sales), the fact that a gun first sold in South Carolina ended up being used to kill someone in Long Island doesn’t really say anything about how that particular gun got from there to here.  And this is because in most states, the original owner of the gun doesn’t have to report when or why he no longer owns a particular gun.  Most states don’t require mandatory reporting of gun thefts, and few states require that police report stolen guns to the feds.  The only gun owners who must report missing or stolen guns to the ATF are federally-licensed gun dealers, and most dealers protect their inventory because replacing a stolen gun ain’t cheap.

Now for the first time a group of researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have published data on how guns that were picked up by the Pittsburgh PD actually went from the counter-top to the street.  Based on an analysis of 762 gun traces conducted by the Firearms Tracing Unit in 2008, the researchers established that while 80% of the guns were recovered from persons other than the legal owner, at least one-third were stolen (the actual number was probably substantially higher,)  but less than half of those thefts were reported to the police.  If this data is at all representative of the national scene, this means that upwards of 200,000 unreported guns get into ‘wrong hands’ each year without a single straw sale.

Neither expanded background checks or more diligence about straw sales has anything to do with stolen guns. And if gun owners were penalized for not reporting gun thefts, I guarantee you they would be more careful about securing their guns. And by the way, reporting a missing gun doesn’t violate any of those so-called 2nd Amendment ‘rights’ at all.


1 thought on “There’s More To Reducing Gun Violence Than Expanding Background Checks.

  1. I had a handgun stolen one time (A Ruger Super BlackHawk) It was in a well locked storage space. A hole had been made where there wasn’t one before. I called the Cops with a description and the SN. The guy I spoke with acted irritated and dismissive. Like, “Why are you calling us? You think we care?” I remember thinking to myself, “Actually, I am doing this because whoever has it now is criminal and I want to distance myself from having to answer awkward questions if it ever becomes evidence.” I know, a 4 lb, long barreled Ruger 44 Mag is not very popular with the bad guys, for all sorts of reasons. Nonetheless, I wanted to be on the safe side legally. The Cops attitude told me a lot. The information I was giving them would just turn into extra work for them and the odds were strong that it would be useless in the future. I am thinking now of the late, unlamented Long Gun Registery in Canada. Billions of C dollars were spent to keep and maintain a database regarding which houses had (any sort of) guns in them. In the end, it was abandoned as useless because the Cops knew better than to depend on it. They were never going to stroll into an unknown domestic situation as if there could not possibly be a weapon present just because the list said so. So, what were they buying for all the money? It did function as a way to pre-identify who the law abiding folks were. (In practice, folks who had complied never became a threat to LE). But nowadays, there are easier and much cheaper ways to create a Cop-Searchable data base identifying the law abiding. A well run CHL system is a good example. Heck, in Texas, you pay the state to reduce your privacy and get put into their computers. That is why they incentivize it in every way they can. That is why Houston SWAT guys teach the classes here. They WANT folks to get a CHL. This is not complicated.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.