Is tracking the illegal gun trade a waste of time?

[spin]

A 22-year-old thug from Stamford is convicted on Oct. 14 of possessing a "Street Sweeper 12-gauge revolving cylinder shotgun." Five days later, a Bridgeport coke dealer gets time added to his sentence for having a loaded Glock 23. The end of last month saw a career criminal from Hartford charged with carrying a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol.

If you're wondering where the hell these low-lifes are getting all this firepower, you won't find out from Connecticut's Statewide Firearms Trafficking Task Force. It was created to deal with this exact problem, but it's become another victim of Connecticut's budget crisis.

***snip***

That could be because the officers assigned to the task force have been used for other purposes, or perhaps because the state police felt they didn't need to spend all of the $400,000 a year it got in the past couple of years. In 2007 to 2008, only $147,000 of the money was used, while just under $300,000 of the funding was spent in 2008 to 2009. Last year, according to the state police, the task force seized just 65 illegal firearms, a figure that has dropped to just 30 this year.

***snip***

There are still federal-local gun task forces operating in Connecticut's cities under the Safe Neighborhoods program. Hartford Police Lt. Lance Sigersmith said the program is "awesome in targeting illegal guns" in his city. The feds have prosecuted a number of cases of illegal gun buying and selling in recent years. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is responsible for tracing how guns got from manufacturers to authorized gun dealers and eventually into the hands of criminals.

According to the ATF, there were 1,563 guns seized and traced in Connecticut last year. Of the 779 where a state of origin could be identified, 478 came from this state. Florida led the list of outside states of origin with 34, followed by Virginia with 31 and Pennsylvania with 23.

***snip***

Everyone agrees tracing a gun is often a long, frustrating experience. Serial numbers may be obliterated, older weapons may not have serial numbers, gun dealers may go out of business, the gun owner of record may have moved or died.

That was supposed to have been the job of the gun trafficking task force, and now it's gone.

"I've got to believe they're not connecting the dots and following through," Pinciaro said of Connecticut law enforcement. "I don't think the political will exists to follow it through."
http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=15409 emphasis added

[greennina]

1. 30 prevented murders...

is enough to justify that expense ten times over.

Of course the real solution is to fix the process that allows those things to be sold in the first place. If those NRA-idiots weren't allowed to buy guns then there would be no guns for them to sell to the criminals. Afer all, all of the guns sold in over a decade required a background-check. Other than the few that were stolen, every one of those that was owned illigally was given to the criminal by a gun owner that passed a background check.

[spin]

2. There may be more stolen firearms than you believe...

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

July 1995, NCJ-148201

Guns Used in Crime
By Marianne W. Zawitz
BJS Statistician


All stolen guns are available to criminals
by definition. Recent studies of
adult and juvenile offenders show that
many have either stolen a firearm or
kept, sold, or traded a stolen firearm:
According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.
Studies of adult and juvenile offenders
that the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services conducted
in 1992 and 1993 found that 15% of
the adult offenders and 19% of the juvenile
offenders had stolen guns; 16%
of the adults and 24% of the juveniles
had kept a stolen gun; and 20% of the
adults and 30% of the juveniles had
sold or traded a stolen gun.
From a sample of juvenile inmates
in four States, Sheley and Wright
found that more than 50% had stolen
a gun at least once in their lives and
24% had stolen their most recently obtained
handgun. They concluded that
theft and burglary were the original, not
always the proximate, source of many
guns acquired by the juveniles.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

Note: the report is dated but still may be basically accurate.

This news article is more up to date.

Police say a firearm is stolen every day in Mobile

By Mike Brantley
August 16, 2009, 8:01AM


Odds are, a gun will be stolen in Mobile today, maybe even more than one.

For the last year, the city has been averaging just over one gun stolen each day, according to statistics gathered by the Mobile Police Department.

For example, 392 guns were reported stolen between the end of June 2008 and the end of June 2009.

Some were stolen from homes, others from vehicles, police said.

There's no way to tell if gun thefts are up or down, said Officer Christopher Levy, a police spokesman, because the department doesn't track those statistics.
http://blog.al.com/live/2009/08/police_say_a_firearm_is_stolen.html

[rl6214]

3. "If those NRA-idiots "

"weren't allowed to buy guns then there would be no guns for them to sell to the criminals"

You really don't have any clue what you are talking about, do you?

[Euromutt]

4. Those are some interesting claims you make in passing

If those NRA-idiots weren't allowed to buy guns then there would be no guns for them to sell to the criminals.

First, would you care to provide some evidence, any evidence, that the primary source of firearms to the criminal element is straw purchasing by NRA members? Bear in mind that there are an estimated 80 million gun owners in the US, of whom only 4 million are members of the NRA.

Second, what makes you think that if straw purchasing dried as a source of firearms to criminals, another would not be rapidly found? There seems to be no shortage of illegal handguns in the United Kingdom, despite handguns having been made illegal to possess, let alone to sell, a dozen years ago. The fact is that the number of guns in criminal hands is determined by demand, not by supply; if criminals feel they need guns, they will get hold of them because there will always be somebdy willing to supply them.

If we could magic away all the privately owned guns in the country, and prohibit the importation, manufacturing and sale of more, it wouldn't take long before some enterprising spark started smuggling in handguns for sale to the criminal element. After all, it's physically impossible to grow coca plants in North America, and yet nobody who wants cocaine seems to have much trouble getting hold of some. Traffickers smuggle in drugs by the ton, humans by the score, why would it be so difficult to smuggle in guns and ammunition?

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Do you really want over 80 million voters angry at the Democrats?

That is exactly what you would get if you tried to ban private gun ownership. And there is that small problem of your solution being unconstitutional.

[spin]

8. Double the 80 million voter figure...

Most of the people who buy firearms are male and are married. Try to ban guns and both the husband and the wife will show up at the polls. That would make 160 million pissed off voters.

Plus if you passed the law, to have any real effect you would have to ban firearms. You would have probably 30 to 60 percent of the owners refuse to turn their firearms in. You might have a Million Gun Owner march in Washington DC. And unlike many other million this or that marches, this march would actually have one million people or possibly two. Many if not most would be armed. The police would probably avoid arresting those with firearms. How do you arrest 500,000 armed individuals, who might just decide to resist.

The Teabaggers would pack heat at their gatherings. There would be more teabagger meetings and far more teabaggers.

Some states might consider withdrawing from the union.

There wouldn't be another Democrat President for half a century. Sarah Palin would be the next President. She would hold up her moose rifle at the inauguration and yell, "You will have to take my rifle from my cold dead hands."

Damn, I wish I could photoshop Charlton Heston's picture and replace his picture with hers.


Maybe you can use your imagination or maybe this will do.

[gorfle]

9. A few corrections.

If those NRA-idiots weren't allowed to buy guns then there would be no guns for them to sell to the criminals.

I am a member of the NRA, and I have never sold a firearm to a criminal. I know this because I have only sold one firearm, and it went through an FFL dealership and required a NICS background check by the buyer.

Afer all, all of the guns sold in over a decade required a background-check.

This is untrue. Only firearms purchased through an FFL dealer, such as a gun store, require background checks. Private sales do not require background checks. If a criminal wants to buy a firearm, all they need to do is open their local Penny Saver and make a phone call and show up with cash.

[taurus145]

11. Clueless

"Other than the few that were stolen, every one of those that was owned illigally was given to the criminal by a gun owner that passed a background check."

Funny thing. I went deer hunting this morning with a rifle that's nearly as old as me. I saved for it and bought it in 1964. I wasn't old enough to drive for a couple more years. No background check. No forms. No reporting of any kind.

I've been an NRA life member since I was 18. The membership was gift from my granddad. Nope. I've never canceled it out of respect for my granddad.

Most of my firearms, all legally obtained, required no background checks. I've never "given" one to a criminal. No one I know has ever given a firearm to a criminal. A friend of mine once has several guns stolen - along with the 600 pound safe in which they were kept. (The cops said it appeared as though a winch or wrecker was used to move the safe.)

Get a clue.

edit: I blew my HTML attempt

[old mark]

5. Logic: a law banning all privately owned guns would be obeyed only by those

who already obey the laws - criminals, of course do NOT, which is why they are called criminals.

Then you would have an armed police force which is already so understaffed that they don't track lost/stolen guns and armed criminals who would have access to millions of stolen guns and unarmed citizens in the middle, waiting for the police to show up after the criminals have come and gone, leaving dead family members in their wake.(Police response time to emergencies is already nearing a half hour depending on where you live - poor people wait longer, black people - don't bother to call.)

There are MILLIONS of guns in circulation, and older guns if maintained a bit work just as well as new ones... I have a 90 year old Colt revolver that looks pretty beat, but shoots just fine, and have owned and fired handguns going back to the late 1800's that were no longer subject to federal regulation.

It would be great to end crime, but getting rid of guns won't do it - get rid of people and crime will end.

mark

[spin]

7. I have to agree, GET RID OF PEOPLE--NOT GUNS.

That WILL solve the problem.

Have to bounce that off the anti-gun posters and see if it sticks.

[JonQ]

10. Presence of people

is the strongest factor correlating to crime rates.

Access to guns doesn't even come close.

Now I'm not opposed to the existence of people in general terms, I just think it should be heavily regulated, require a license and allowed only in extreme circumstances. And we need to balance our right to exist with the need to reduce crime.

[spin]

12. the crime rate would plummet if we could only regulate assault men.

[Euromutt]

13. It is if you go about it half-assed

The way I see it, you have two options where this kind of program is concerned:

1) you set it up as a long-term commitment, with the intent of identifying patterns in firearms trafficking so that law enforcement strategy can be tailored to fighting it as effectively as possible; or

2) save the money and don't bother.

The state of Connecticut didn't commit itself to this program: the people responsible set it up in order to be seen to be doing something, and then let it go to pot when it didn't seem to matter anymore. Penny-wise and pound-foolish, since you're still spending the fixed operating costs and other overhead.

But then again, this is sort of thing is really what the ATF is supposed to be for, and having a state-level Firearms Trafficking Task Force seems like a replication of effort.

[spin]

14. So once again some politicians tried to paint themselves as crime fighting heroes...

in order to get reelected. They spent a bunch of tax payer money, because all too often tax payer money is just like Monopoly money to our elected officials.

The program was never intended to make any real difference. And it didn't.