The seminal study on where criminals are getting their guns, one can make an interesting observation. In 1991, the survey notes that 20.8% of inmates reported getting their guns through legal sources, like licensed gun shops. Criminals reported in 1991 getting 33.8% from friends and family, and 40.8% from a street source. When the study was repeated in 1997, after the enactment of the Brady Act, the number of criminals reporting getting their guns from an legal source was down to 13.9%, however, the number reporting getting guns from friends and family increased to 39.6%, and street sources dropped to 39.2%. So the drop in crime guns from legal sources dropped 6.9%, while friends and family increased by 5.8%.
What this could very well say is that most criminals who obtained firearms through “lie and buy” prior to the enactment of the Brady Act, after the Brady Act merely shifted to the tactic of obtaining firearms from friends and family.
The breakdown appearing in Table 8 is also of interest. Actual purchases from friends and family went down, but what went way up is the practice of borrowing or renting guns from friends and family. That went up by 8.4%. Breaking down street and illegal sources, theft of firearms dropped somewhat from 91 to 97, as did buying from drugs dealers or other criminals. Black market sources rose.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude from the data that ending private sales would have nearly no effect on criminal access to firearms. Renting or borrowing from associates is not an activity the law can reach easily. This practice is already unlawful in the case of lending or renting to individuals who are prohibited, or who intend to use the firearm to commit a crime. My conclusion is the great burden it would put on lawful gun owners, versus the negligible effect it would have on criminal access, speaks against ending private sales, and probably against having background checks at all. A conclusion that can easily be drawn from this data is that the Brady Act only had the effect of shifting how criminals obtain firearms, rather than seriously impacting the illegal gun market.
Based on the information, that he was tearing down the signs and littering the streets with them, the police arguably had probable cause to arrest him for a crime. He resisted. So what’s the choice? Especially given two female officers and one male officer? The women certainly aren’t going to out wrestle an angry male. In my view, use of the Taser is appropriate, and you’ll notice it was quite effective at bringing about compliance.
The alternative is wrestling the guy to the ground, which is far more likely to result in injury to both officer and suspect.
UPDATE: A lot of folks seem to go with this:
I’ll buy that overwhelming force can sometimes be safer….but tasking can KILL someone…is that really a good idea?
Very rarely, yes. But wrestling people to the ground and using a baton can kill someone too, and is far more likely to result in injury than using a taser.
Those are the current numbers. In the first 23 days of the year, Philly has had 27 murders. That’s 1.17 murders per day so far. But their little PR people want you to believe that crime is on the decline and everything is just fine as long as that little green arrow points down. Move along and don’t ask questions, sheeple.
Looks like Chicago is taking after Philadelphia, in terms of what you do, if you’re a politician trying to cultivate an image of a crime fighter, but crime keeps going up. You fudge the numbers.
This time a 64 year old man a gang just decided to beat for sport. Remember, this is the same city that decided to prosecute Gerald Ung for putting six bullets into the alpha male of an attacking gang. City officials are harder on defenders than on attacking criminals. This is getting so bad, it’s irresponsible of city officials for not encouraging people to get permits and arm themselves. Hell, if I were Nutter, I’d tell the Philadelphia police to set up a firearms training course to help citizens into LTCs. But I’ll eat my hat if I ever see that day.
A fatal beating of a Temple student in Old City. Old City used to be relatively safe, even at night. But Nutterville is looking progressively more like an asylum run by the inmates. It is extremely unwise to venture into Philadelphia, anywhere in Philadelphia, unarmed.
Over at Volokh, some discussion about the EPA fining oil companies for failing to use cellulosic ethanol, a product which does not exist. Companies have been paying the fine. I’m wondering how this is constitutional, however. Can Congress claim the power to create a regulation under the commerce power that is impossible to comply with? Can Congress create any regulation that is impossible to comply with? As AEI noted, “Congress might as well have mandated oil companies blend gasoline with rainbows and unicorn sweat.”
My guess is, in this case, the fine is cheaper than fighting it.
I’m sure our opponents are going to make hay out of this, but this guy isn’t looking to me like he’s the type that’s going to give a crap whether guns are allowed in National Parks or not. The ranger shot was a mother of two.
As the Philadelphia Daily News was headed to print with the headline “Kill-adelphia: Yet again, city tops list of homicide rates,” they missed another homicide for their report. As I told Wyatt in response to that tweet, the city’s leaders think he’s using fuzzy math for considering year-over-year numbers. They only count from the very highest number and consider all numbers below it to be an improvement. Even as murder is on the rise, they use a “method” of counting that considers it down by double digits. The problem is that no one believes them, but the city voters aren’t willing to hold anyone accountable.
But John Coleman, shopping at the Uceta market yesterday, wasn’t buying the spin.
“They lyin’,” said Coleman, 25.
They use every excuse under the sun. You can’t track trends with year-over-year data. (Really? Yet, using the absolute worst year is a method for tracking long-term trends?) The city’s leadership says that the numbers aren’t accurate because they actually include every homicide, and they don’t think all of them count. Which ones don’t count?
“We’ve been pretty much flat for about two years, if you take the Gosnell numbers out,” said Everett Gillison, deputy mayor for public safety, who spoke for the Nutter administration.
Of course, even though shootings are down, the lack of extreme gun control in the rest of the state is to blame, according to the head of the Philadelphia Police Department. The mayor’s spokesman says that the economy is to blame, as does a social worker interviewed in the article. It’s easier to blame everyone else for a city that chooses to do nothing to stop the culture of violence.
Promises are made by the city’s current leaders, but no one cares enough to hold them accountable.
Mayor Nutter, at a debate during his 2007 campaign, pledged that he wouldn’t seek re-election if the 2010 homicide tally was more than the 288 killed in 2002. Then at his inauguration in January 2008, he set what turned out to be an overly ambitious goal of slashing the city’s murder rate by 30 to 50 percent in three to five years. He won re-election this year.
He didn’t meet a single one of those promises, but there was never any doubt as to his chances to hold office this year. I think it speaks volumes that in the picture for the article that only two people in the crowd look upset at the body covered just a few feet from them. I think far too many residents in that city have simply decided to accept this level of crime as a way of life.
There’s a fine line between teaching someone to be smart to avoid being a victim and actually blaming them for the crimes committed. But it looks like Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has not only crossed that line, it’s not even visible in their rearview mirror anymore. They actually criminalize potential victimhood.
Meanwhile, police have issued several citations to people who left vehicles running and unattended in the city during the past week, police Chief Pierre Ritter said.
Motorists are not allowed to leave cars running in Harrisburg if they are not in them, even out front of homes to prevent vehicle theft, Ritter said. Drivers with cars left idling and unattended will receive $90 fines.
Get that? It’s a crime to leave your car in a manner in which it could be stolen by a criminal. You will be punished because someone else might come along and make you a victim.
By this logic, what is Harrisburg’s next big idea to cut down on car theft? Fining those who buy nice cars. If they wouldn’t drive nice cars, then criminals wouldn’t be tempted to take them.
The next big crime fighting law proposed by Chief Ritter will be to cut down on rape. If we follow his justification above, he plans on fining women with vaginas in order to prevent rape. We can’t have those women with vaginas tempting potential rapists.
