From: nationalreview.com, by David French, on Aug 12, 2016, see the article HERE.
Here’s news that should shock exactly no one – the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who did not lawfully purchase their firearms. That’s the finding of a study of gun crimes in Pittsburgh in 2008 [it should be noted here that the study was published in July of 2016, so while the data is from 2008, the study is new – Garnet92]:
In the study, led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health, researchers partnered with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to trace the origins of all 893 firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008.
They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else [originally purchased legally by someone else]. The researchers were primarily interested in how these guns made their way from a legal purchase — at a firearm dealer or via a private sale — to the scene of the crime.
Criminals obtained weapons through theft (illegal), straw purchases (illegal), and some had been simply lost. Though I must confess that I’m dubious of one offered explanation — that some gun owners “aren’t keeping track” of lost guns because “they have a lot of them and don’t use them that often.” I know quite a few people with extensive gun collections, and not one of them has trouble keeping up with their own firearms. More than a few “lost” weapons are knowingly given away or sold to new, unlawful owners.
This Pittsburgh study reflects the findings of a similar Chicago study that showed criminals use their “social connections” to obtain guns illegally: Of the 70 who admitted to having access to a gun, the survey found that only two (3 percent) were purchased directly from a gun store. Most had gotten their guns illegally:
“adults who are entitled to possess a gun are more likely than not to buy from an FFL [licensed dealer]. On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from ‘street’ sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers.” The study emphasized the “social connections” that were used to obtain guns; 40 of the 48 guns for which there was detailed information were obtained through “family, gang members, or other social connections.”
In other words, criminals break the law not just when using the gun to commit the crime but also when obtaining the gun in the first place. Speaking of the Pittsburgh study, the Washington Post writer acknowledged the implications:
The top-line finding of the study — that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners — reinforces a common refrain among gun rights advocacy groups. They argue that since criminals don’t follow laws, new regulations on gun ownership would only serve to burden lawful owners while doing little to combat crime.
It’s not just an “argument.” It’s the truth. Criminals in general aren’t deterred by the existence of criminal law, and it’s simply magical thinking to believe that any given new regulation will have any material impact on criminal behavior.
The findings of this study come as no surprise to gun rights advocates. The leftist gun control goons are hell-bent on removing guns from law-abiding citizens by hook or crook. They concentrate on new laws that will make acquisitions of guns by law-abiding citizens more difficult (and eventually, if they have their way, impossible) because confiscating guns from criminals is hard. So they choose to attack lawful gun owners, a far “softer” target. I suspect that most of them don’t really have a deeply-held belief that their actions will reduce crime, it’s just that the gun control is one of the bedrock planks in the leftist political platform and so, to retain their membership in ClubLeftist, they continue to push it.
It’s always been ludicrous to me that the gun control people publicly state that the new laws will have an impact on criminal activity. A criminal by definition, doesn’t abide by laws, otherwise laws against murder, armed robbery, gun-safe zones, etc. would have made an impact on those crimes. Why on earth would they think that trying to enforce background checks on individual sales would deter a criminal from obtaining a gun? How would they answer that? Do they think that people who wanted to sell a gun to an acquaintance, a family member, or a gang member would refrain from doing so because they were required to do a background check? How stupid can these people be?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that between 2005 and 2010, about 1.4 million guns were stolen during burglaries or other property crimes in the U.S., but at least 80 percent (186,800) had not been recovered. The agency also found that burglaries accounted for 58 percent of the stolen guns. Robberies accounted for only about 7 percent of all gun thefts. More than 30 percent of guns confiscated by the bureau’s FTU (Firearm Tracking Unit) were confirmed to be stolen, according to the study.
Of those that were purchased (not stolen), 40 of the 48 guns (83%) for which there was detailed information were obtained through “family, gang members, or other social connections.
Using the left’s logic, it seems to me that the most efficient method of preventing criminals from acquiring guns would be to outlaw burglary – that, according to the study, would have prevented 58% of the guns from falling into criminal hands. What’s that you say? Burglary is already illegal?