If Guns are Cheap, Criminals Will Have Guns
by Mike Kimel
If Guns are Cheap, Criminals Will Have Guns
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. We’ve all heard that many times. But is it true? Well, it is certainly a tautology. But there is another way to ensure that outlaws have guns. Namely, keep them cheap.
From the 2009 Firearms Used in the Commission of Crimes focusing specifically on guns used in the commission of crimes in rural parts of California:
Of the 147 firearms examined, there were 120 (81.6
percent) handguns, 13 (8.8 percent) rifles, 11 (7.5 percent) shotguns,
and 3 (2 percent) machine guns.
The 2010 version of the same report paints a similar picture:
Of the 175 firearms reported, there were 158 (90.3 percent) handguns, 12 (6.9 percent) rifles, 4 (2.3 percent) shotguns, and 1 (0.6 percent) full-auto firearm.
The reason handguns are more often used in the commission of a crime than other types of weapons is not because the typical criminal doesn’t think it would be tres cool to use a belt fed machine gun or a shoulder launched missile. Its because those types of weapons are very, very hard to come by. With some digging, you can get your hands on a belt fed machine gun, but you are very unlikely to do it for less than $10K for a cheapo model. Instead, what often happens is that armed criminals are most often armed with what one can best be described as lousy guns. Don’t believe me? Here is a post from someone who clearly cannot be described as pro-gun control, commenting on the list of top ten guns used in crimes according to the ATF. People who want to have a gun for safety and protection purposes must go to a licensed gun shop like the gun store fort to legally purchased and owned a gun.
Descriptions include:
An absolute piece of crap that sells for less than $120 retail. No real shooter would even warrant this “gun” as a legitimate target to even shoot at.
Here’s another:
Another piece of shit that sells for less than $110 retail, and is worth less than the pipsqueak ammunition you can try to feed it.
And another:
The cheapest 12-guage on the market, designed for people who cannot afford a real shotgun. Not even close to being considered a “fighting” shotgun. No offense to Mossberg, but there is a reason that these Wal-Mart grade firepoles are given away at Ducks Unlimited as door prizes. Most do (and should) end up being traded up at gun shops for real shotguns.
Some of the other descriptions are even more creative. My favorite is number ten on the list:
This one takes the cake as the “most prone to never fire, ever” firearm that was ever produced. Apparently they had a street price of $60 in Miami at one point, which would have been better spent on a wristrocket or a billyclub if you planned to actually use one in a legitimate crime. They eventually had to fight lawsuits from prosecutors and criminals at the same time because of their inherent defectiveness.
To quote that post further:
Though most teenage gangbangers wouldn’t be caught dead with a Smith and Wesson .38 revolver, an old fashioned six shooter, it nonetheless claims the lead on the top ten list. That’s because there are literally millions in existence; Smith and Wesson introduced the .38 in 1899, and since then, models have proliferated, transforming the name “Smith and Wesson .38” into a generic label for a particular style of gun, even clones that aren’t made by Smith and Wesson. Similarly, the Smith and Wesson .357 revolver, which was introduced in 1935, and the venerable Mossberg shotgun made the list based on the sheer volume in circulation.
But street criminals are interested almost exclusively in semiautomatics, preferring their superior firepower. (Semiautomatics hold at least seven and often as many as ten or twelve rounds of ammunition. –Or 18 if you can spend the extra dinero made from a 7-11 heist on a Beretta)
Gun traffickers like to peddle cheap semiautomatics to teenagers because they can tack on a hefty mark-up (of ten bucks) and still offer a weapon that costs less than an upscale gun like a Ruger or Smith and Wesson semiautomatic. That’s why inexpensive semiautomatics dominate the top ten list. As it happens, many of the companies on that list have links to George Jennings, founder of the now-defunct Raven Arms and his clan. Jennings’ son Bruce founded Bryco in 1992. According to the ATF, Jennings’ son-in-law Jim Davis founded Davis Industries, and Lorcin Engineering was launched by Jim Waldorf, Bruce Jennings’ high school friend. These companies and several others also linked to Jennings are known in the trade as the “ring of fire.”
The point is, criminals use the guns they do because they’re available, and the guns that are available are usually available because they’re cheap.
It’s why they’re called Saturday Night Specials.
Perhaps we should make guns more expensive. Don’t outlaw them. Tax the crap out of them. Make the $100 pistol cost $500.
I really like the idea of taxing guns — negative externality, pigovian, etc.
Even better: gun lovers love to point at death rates from cars. So how would they feel if guns, like cars, had to be individually registered to an individual, licensed, and taxed, with proof of insurance required to renew the license/registration? Responsibility is a Conservative value, right?
On pricing: I think it would help (maybe a lot), but the effect would be uncertain based on this info alone:
First you’d have to look at the total gun population, and see if it’s different from this.
If you find that criminals prefer cheaper guns than the general population, that is some suggestion that there’s (some unknown quantity of) price-elasticity of demand there, that higher prices would result in less sales. But elasticity could be low. They might buy (nearly) the same amount of guns, just at higher prices.
on the other hand
James Earl Ray bought an expensive 30.06 to do the job after learning that a cheaper gun would not suffice.
And Lee Harvey Oswald used a cheap Itallian carbine. Not even a rifle, a carbine (well, OK, a carbine is a short rifle, but being shorter it’s less accurate).
You need to sum up a lot of anecdotes before you have data.
oh, hell, Mike
data is just anecdotes massaged to sell whatever it is you are trying to sell.
just so you know:
i personally don’t like guns, especially my neighbors’.
and i wouldn’t mind seeing some regulations that restricted saturday night specials and guns in the hands of the insane.
on the other hand, even poor people have a right to the illusion of home security. and i’m fairly sure i’d make the “insane” list once the government starts keeping one.
“And Lee Harvey Oswald used a cheap Itallian carbine….”
And there are many who would question that Lee Harvey fired the rounds that killed Kennedy. Note the distance. Note the complex angle of fire. An old carbine from Italy. Oswald may have made the most unlikely kill shot in history. Then again he may not have made that shot.
The loudest public outcry comes after the most horrific gun massacres all of which seem to have been by means of semi-automatic (that’s quick multiple shot) pistol and/or rifle. That’s where the focus of attention needs to be. We’re never going to be able to predict who and when a screw will come loose and that loose cannnon will have dad’s, mom’s or grandpa’s semi at hand. We all know that it is only a matter of time, and the intervals are getting shorter, before another massacre occurs. It’s like a bad disease. It’s contagious. And no one needs a ten shot magazine to hunt or target shoot, both of which take a steady eye and hand together with concentration. There is no practicle use beyond combat for the semi with a big clip.
Jack
trouble is you are answering an argument which isn’t the real point.
lots of people like guns. lots and lots of people. some of them are convinced in their own minds that having guns will enable them to defend freedom from a tyrannical government.
you may not agree with them. but you are not going to change their minds. i think we may be stuck with guns the same way we are stuck with cars.
and a government that no longer cares about justice or decency.
i try not to think about the killings, because i couldn’t face the blame if i thought “i” could have prevented them by voting or something to get guns out of the hands of killers.
but i don’t really think i can. and i am not entirely convinced the folks who like guns are wrong or that i have a right to take their fantasy away from them.
and your very strong conviction that this is nonsense isn’t going to change my mind, such as it is, much less theirs, such as it is.
Stolen guns have a very low cost.
Guns traded for dope or food stamp cards are really cheap also.
There have been firearms in my family since at least the 1840s. The only shots fired in anger were in times of war.
Rusty
and much as i hate to say it, Mike’s “data” only proves that belt fed machine guns are awkward to carry and operate when you need to stick up a gas station.
heck, even a rifle or shotgun might be more conspicuous than a pistol.
personally, i never trust “data” carried out to tenths of a percent.
unless of course we are talking about the defect rate per million lightbulbs produced in a new factory.
data begins by abstracting all meaning out of “experience” (that’s anecdote for those who like that word) and then forgetting what the original problem was.
Dale
You’rfe virtually validating my point though I may not have made the point clear enough. You’re probably right to ppoint out thatg guns in general are not going to be banned or even controlled by civil authority. And my point is that that is not what is needed. A particular calss of arms do need to be controlled tightly by rule of law because they are not required for sport or self defense, but they are capable of the horrific carnage that was witnessed at Newtown. Yes, we have to fight the fools that think that their interest in military types of arms is the same as a right to own and keep such weapons in their homes. As I’ve pointed out previously Scalia’s decidion in the Heller case does not preclude government control of unusual forms of arms. A semi automatic assault rifle is onnly slightly less dangerous then a fully automatic machine gun and has the added danger of being more easily concealed. Again I repeat, such semi automatic firing guns, either pistol or rifle, with high capacity magazines have no place in civilian use.
And anyone arguing that they need high power to defend themselves against government tyranny is talking treason and sedition.
Jack
let us make very clear the difference between “treason and sedition” and an arguably reasonable fear of some future need to defend the people from a government that has been seized by a tyranny.
i don’t expect you to agree that that is a realistic possibility. but i do expect you to understand the difference between being afraid of that and “treason” to the country.
as far as sedition goes, i think our politicians and pundits commit that on a daily basis. i used to worry about it when it was directed at Clinton, but now I am used to it and figure if the people are stupid enough to buy it, it is probably safer to “allow” it than it would be to suppress it.
slow down and think a little more carefully before throwing around words like treason.
I call a spade a spade because I recognize that its not a shovel. Yes, many of our elected officials and many of their media sychophants walk a thin line. I don’t expect the party in power to control a disloyal opposition. Nor do I expect that the groups most likely to steal our freedoms are going to be objected to by mouth breathing fanatics. And they are mostly on the far right of reason.
jack
there are good people in jail right now convicted of something like treason for trying to inform you of the government’s misdeeds.
and in one case, a very young man who went looking for god in the wrong place and found himself in an army our president illegally declared war on… not unlike my relatives in Georgia in 1861. But they didn’t get thrown in jail for their foolishness.
a spade is not always a spade. and you need to be more careful about what you are shovelling.
“there are good people in jail right now convicted of something like treason for trying to inform you of the government’s misdeeds.”
Again you prove my point Dale. That very fact is itself bordering on treason. It is Orwellian at the least. Also, listen to the gibberish bandied about on any of the Fox stations. Sedition is not only the incitement to rebellion, but includes the incitement of discontent with the intention of disrupting the governmental process. I’m not being too careless with words in this case.
well, Jack
if you are saying Bradley manning got/is getting what he deserved
or that John Walker Lindh deserved twenty years in prison
there is nothing more I can say to you.
You have completely misunderstood my points. The actions taken against Manning and more recently Kiriakou are very sad testimony regarding our loss of blind justice. The ill will of the judge in the Kiriakou case is evident in this statement. “Moments before issuing the sentence, Judge Brinkema asked Mr. Kiriakou if he had anything to say. When he declined, the judge said, “Perhaps you have already spoken too much.” Criminal investigation in our country may itself itself be becoming a criminal enterprise. The whistle blower is sentenced and a perpetrator is promoted by appointment. It’s a very sad time in America.
Jack
I am not sure I have misunderstood your points. I have been trying to point out some of the dangers of accusing other people of treason.
And I repeat, there is a difference between fantasizing yourself as a Minuteman prepared to defend the country against tyranny, and committing acts of violence with the intent of bringing down the present government.