Should low quality firearms be eliminated or raise the price?

[naisho]

Question for what gun owners think.

Apparently it seems that certain guns are popular choices for criminals, whether stolen or bought. They might steal it from the poorer citizens who bought the gun to protect themselves, or have some strawman buy it for them in the store.

Examples: Hi-Point 9mm, Bersa Thunder seem fairly common with criminals. Not to mention .380/ old revolvers, Taurus guns. They also share another thing in common, they are dirt cheap, and can probably be bought in general sporting stores, along with ammo. I know it may seem generalizing, just trying to get a point across.

(news) Gun Stories: For Criminals Guns Are Cheap, Disposable » News » OPB
(forum opinion) What kind of man buys a Hi-Point? - THR
(news) Chicago gangs don’t have to go far to buy guns

I get a feeling that general criminals don't care about the quality of a gun. Maybe a renown or up the line drug dealer. Bottom level folks seems like they just want to get something that can point and shoot for cheap. Not something special or higher up the production line.

In an effort to reduce gun violence, wouldn't it seem reasonable to get rid of the cheap and more easily accessible guns?

 

[jonnyghost]

Some people can only afford "cheap and more easily accessible guns". They have as much of a right to self defense as anyone else.

 

[jonnyghost]

Question for what gun owners think.

Apparently it seems that certain guns are popular choices for criminals, whether stolen or bought. They might steal it from the poorer citizens who bought the gun to protect themselves,

If they steal it then the price makes no difference.

or have some strawman buy it for them in the store.

Examples: Hi-Point 9mm, Bersa Thunder seem fairly common with criminals. Not to mention .380/ old revolvers, Taurus guns. They also share another thing in common, they are dirt cheap,

They are also popular with single moms who want home protection but can't afford a lot.

and can probably be bought in general sporting stores, along with ammo. I know it may seem generalizing, just trying to get a point across.

The store is where most people buy new guns and ammo. For firearms it's the same process no matter what kind of store it is.

(news) Gun Stories: For Criminals Guns Are Cheap, Disposable » News » OPB
(forum opinion) What kind of man buys a Hi-Point? - THR
(news) Chicago gangs don’t have to go far to buy guns

I get a feeling that general criminals don't care about the quality of a gun. Maybe a renown or up the line drug dealer. Bottom level folks seems like they just want to get something that can point and shoot for cheap. Not something special or higher up the production line.

They also make improvised guns out of pipes and things.

In an effort to reduce gun violence, wouldn't it seem reasonable to get rid of the cheap and more easily accessible guns?

I think in an effort to reduce all violence we should train and arm all willing responsible law abiding citizens.

 

[diehardbiker]

Exactly, that is what criminals would think and its still cheaper than buying cheap ass guns. Pipe, cap, and right size of shell, rubber band and small-medium sized nail. Build it right, and just snap the rubber band and the nail will strike the primer BAM! Total cost? Perhaps no more than 20 dollars.

They also make improvised guns out of pipes and things.

 

[Foxrac]

I don't think eliminate the low quality firearm will help the criminal because criminals can use stolen guns.

 

[PowerON]

Or buy black market guns from Mexico. That's another reason we need Berlin wall!

 

[Foxrac]

Or buy black market guns from Mexico. That's another reason we need Berlin wall!

Well, I'm pro-wildlife so I don't support fence in US-Mexico border.

You can still buy gun from black market in Canada too.

 

[PowerON]

Well, I'm pro-wildlife so I don't support fence in US-Mexico border.

You can still buy gun from black market in Canada too.

Canada are very expensive to buy gun. Mexico is pretty cheap that anyone would like it.

 

[jonnyghost]

Or buy black market guns from Mexico. That's another reason we need Berlin wall!

The Berlin wall was built to keep people in.

 

[jonnyghost]

Canada are very expensive to buy gun. Mexico is pretty cheap that anyone would like it.

They don't use guns to kill people in Canada, they use chainsaws and homemade swords. Chainsaw killer welcomed into U.S.

 

[naisho]

Some people can only afford "cheap and more easily accessible guns". They have as much of a right to self defense as anyone else.

In this case, might as well translate that to some people can only afford "cheap and more easily accessible vehicles" or "cheap and more accessible tires" so they have as much as a privelege as anyone else on the road to be driving, even if they could be a roadside hazard. As long as they have a privilege as anyone else to be entitled to drive right? Who cares if they have dangerous cars or tires.

Some people can only afford "cheap and more easily accessible" tobacco and they have as much as a right as anyone else to smoke as much as they want

...Some drunkards can only afford "cheap and more easily accessible" booze and they have as much of a right as anyone else to drink as much as they want.

The law is not always perfect to human society, we all realize this. There should be some middle ground and some people to make sure of that, just like transactions between honest gun dealers and honest gun buyers. The ATF stands as the middle ground between them.

Don't allow as much cheap booze and there might not be as much drunkards. Don't allow cheap tobacco and there might not be as much people with lung cancer or easily giving into addiction. Don't allow cheap vehicles at the dealer (not secondhand vehicles) and there might not be as much collisions/accidents from poor vehicle ethics or buildsmanship. Or you could just let them all do it because it is their "right" to do so and we would be a nation in pretty bad shape.

Sometimes it's just semantics to interpretation of the law, it doesn't help any if the statement isn't wholly true.

 

[naisho]

If they steal it then the price makes no difference.

I don't think eliminate the low quality firearm will help the criminal because criminals can use stolen guns.

True, I can see how you guys felt it would make no difference if you looked at things at it from a basic, very simple level. But you end up missing the big picture for the price of being simple. There are pretty big implications from having cheap guns.

COLUMBIA, SC: Nearly 6,000 guns stolen or lost in SC in 2012 | Crime | The State

COLUMBIA, SC — About 5,839 guns went missing in South Carolina during 2012, ranking the state 11th in the nation for stolen and lost guns.

The majority of the guns, 5,718, were stolen. And of those, the vast majority were taken from private citizens.

... Often, people will leave a gun in their vehicle, then take it to a car wash or a repair shop where other people have access to the vehicle and the gun, Lott said. The gun disappears, and the owner does not realize it is gone until later, he said.

looking at known data of stolen firearms being used in a crime incident where it was recovered, you can start easily seeing how much these weapons end up being used for some crime. The kicker is once you realize that many criminals (or their sellers) obliterate their serial numbers, along with people who don't report their lost/stolen weapon it should increase these figures dramatically. There's no known data from those except if you check with your police, and that information is always voluntary on whether or not they decide to share it with you.

Cheap guns translate to more people being able to afford a gun, which.. also means more guns to be can be stolen or taken especially from poor people and their families. This also includes struggling families whose children turn the way of the gang path... which in end.. means more guns available to criminals. If you had a more expensive item and/or gun, aren't you going to be more careful of it, or store it more safely because you don't want your asset being lost or stolen? Seems like common sense.

They are also popular with single moms who want home protection but can't afford a lot.

See above. If they are popular (theoretically) with single moms who want home protection and can't afford a lot, it is also theoretically reasonable to believe that they can't afford much if any home security measures to store for their guns. This also means their guns are probably hidden in the drawer, under the bed, only to be more easily accessible and be stolen by your everyday burglar, who is looking to make easy burglaries without getting caught from a poor class neighborhood.

The store is where most people buy new guns and ammo. For firearms it's the same process no matter what kind of store it is.

It's not about the the process though. No argument from me about that. It's the issue of cheap guns being readily available at any location near you. Any guy without a gun looking to make an easy, effortless hit can just pick up a cheap throwaway, or find some strawman to sell to them. The convenience from cheap brands being everywhere then might be a dis-convenience when it means they can also get these guns more easily.

 

[naisho]

They also make improvised guns out of pipes and things.

Exactly, that is what criminals would think and its still cheaper than buying cheap ass guns. Pipe, cap, and right size of shell, rubber band and small-medium sized nail. Build it right, and just snap the rubber band and the nail will strike the primer BAM! Total cost? Perhaps no more than 20 dollars.

Are you being serious? This is the justification?
Would you consider buying some ~$30 or homemade notoriously unreliable zipgun? If I was a criminal and super poor that I don't have more than a few bucks and needed to shoot only one person, sure. Even then, I need to know how to make one or find someone who is selling them.. Not all criminals are that brilliant. It makes more sense to steal or save up a couple hundred to buy a stolen gun off the streets.

If I were a criminal it sounds much easier to buy a cheap $100-200 used or stolen gun... and have 5-7 more rounds to shoot, probably at more people, especially in a gang/group type situation. Other than smuggling it across locations more easily, why should I save my money and get some one-shot gun?

When you check the news, how often do you come across an article talking about a criminal who got away or killed someone with a zip gun? I bet of all incidents involving a firearm retrieved, it's a miniscule amount. Stuff like "we found zip guns at the person's home" don't count, I'm talking about outside where a real crime happened.

 

[Reba]

In this case, might as well translate that to some people can only afford "cheap and more easily accessible vehicles" or "cheap and more accessible tires" so they have as much as a privelege as anyone else on the road to be driving, even if they could be a roadside hazard. As long as they have a privelege as anyone else to be entitled to drive right? Who cares if they have dangerous cars or tires.

Cheaper doesn't always equate to hazardous. Cheaper can mean fewer frills or a less well-known name. The tires all have to meet minimum DOT standards. Also, even an expensive car can become a road hazard if it's not maintained or driven properly. Even expensive tires can fail if they aren't replaced at the right time. Cheap and accessible doesn't translate into dangerous.

Some people can only afford "cheap and more easily accessible" tobacco and they have as much as a right as anyone else to smoke as much as they want

I really don't get that analogy. Whether tobacco is low-end or high-end it's still unhealthy.

...Some drunkards can only afford "cheap and more easily accessible" booze and they have as much of a right as anyone else to drink as much as they want.

Drunkards are going to be drunkards regardless of the price of alcohol. I don't see the comparison to guns.

The law is not always perfect to human society, we all realize this. There should be some middle ground and some people to make sure of that, just like transactions between honest gun dealers and honest gun buyers. The ATF stands as the middle ground between them.

How does that correlate with cheaper price guns? Honest gun dealers sell cheap gun, expensive guns and everything in between. The BATF has nothing to do with that.

Don't allow as much cheap booze and there might not be as much drunkards.

I don't think so. Even when alcohol is hard to acquire people who want it get it.

Don't allow cheap tobacco and there might not be as much people with lung cancer or easily giving into addiction.

I don't think so. Same with alcohol. If people want it, they'll get it. They might complain about the cost but it won't stop them from using.

Don't allow cheap vehicles at the dealer (not secondhand vehicles) and there might not be as much collisions/accidents from poor vehicle ethics or buildsmanship. Or you could just let them all do it because it is their "right" to do so and we would be a nation in pretty bad shape.

How many traffic wrecks happen because the vehicles involved were "cheap" compared to driver error? Every wreck either I or a family member has been involved in was driver error. Not one wreck due to cheapness of vehicle, and believe me, I've driven some really bad cars.

Sometimes it's just semantics to interpretation of the law, it doesn't help any if the statement isn't wholly true.

Which statement isn't true?

 

[naisho]

Cheaper doesn't always equate to hazardous. Cheaper can mean fewer frills or a less well-known name. The tires all have to meet minimum DOT standards. Also, even an expensive car can become a road hazard if it's not maintained or driven properly. Even expensive tires can fail if they aren't replaced at the right time. Cheap and accessible doesn't translate into dangerous.

Same with cheap guns. Cheaper guns can mean fewer options on the gun, or a less well-known name. All guns have to be federally approved on regulations. Even an expensive gun can be a hazard as much as a cheap one. The turning point is in the quantity of the cases involving cheap guns, not the quality of them. If you looked from a perspective involving the number of cases of cheap guns vs expensive guns being used in crime incidents, cheap ends up taking the larger portion of the pie.

I really don't get that analogy. Whether tobacco is low-end or high-end it's still unhealthy.

I think you are coming from a black and white view. There's an in-between area to me. The price of tobacco and alcohol serve as checkpoint. If tobacco and alcohol were cheaper than they are right now, like $1-2 instead of the $4-6 they are now - people end up being able to afford more = more drinks and tobacco to go around. Not to mention more easily accessible for individuals with less money, such as young people. This = more people in society being affected because of people's temptations/stupidity.

Drunkards are going to be drunkards regardless of the price of alcohol. I don't see the comparison to guns.

I'm talking about some degree of regulation being factored, not the cheapness in this explanation. I didn't say the word cheap in that sentence. The ATF to make sure nothing shady happens, which never a bad thing. It was a bad analogy, but the point I'm getting at is some regulation is never a bad thing to keep things from getting "too cheap".

I don't think so. Even when alcohol is hard to acquire people who want it get it. Same with alcohol. If people want it, they'll get it. They might complain about the cost but it won't stop them from using.

Maybe my analogy came across badly but what I'm saying is if the price of guns are kept in check so that it's not "too cheap", less people can afford them and that also means less criminals with guns.

How many traffic wrecks happen because the vehicles involved were "cheap" compared to driver error?

The overall perspective, as in quanitity over quality of situations. None of us really have any information over which car models more likely to get in accidents, but I'm somewhat assuming (on my end) dirt cheap vehicles are more likely to be into accidents than the more expensive ones just because of the price factor. There's less expensive vehicles around, and more cheap ones around = the cheap ones involved in cases.

Every wreck either I or a family member has been involved in was driver error.

You are making that personal and anecdotal though. Does you or your family represent the rest of the drivers in the USA?

Which statement isn't true?

The statement that letting people being able to afford cheap guns might be a positive thing. I don't think it's necessarily true.

I don't really want to get sidetracked into a debate about cheap cars and booze and tobacco though, it's not what I was intending to focus on. They are just analogies to bring perspective into cheap guns.

 

[Reba]

True, I can see how you guys felt it would make no difference if you looked at things at it from a basic, very simple level. But you end up missing the big picture for the price of being simple. There are pretty big implications from having cheap guns.

I still don't see what stolen guns have to do with cheap guns that are legally sold. What is the "big picture"? If a crook steals a gun then uses it in a crime it's bad no matter what the original price for the gun was to the honest buyer.

I read the link about the stolen guns, and nowhere did it correlate the price of the guns with the number that were stolen.

looking at known data of stolen firearms being used in a crime incident where it was recovered, you can start easily seeing how much these weapons end up being used for some crime. The kicker is once you realize that many criminals (or their sellers) obliterate their serial numbers, along with people who don't report their lost/stolen weapon it should increase these figures dramatically. There's no known data from those except if you check with your police, and that information is always voluntary on whether or not they decide to share it with you.

I don't think anyone is arguing that stolen guns are usually used in committing crimes. No one is supporting stealing guns or buying hot guns.

Cheap guns translate to more people being able to afford a gun, which.. also means more guns to be can be stolen or taken especially from poor people and their families.

Guns are more likely to be stolen from places where they aren't carefully secured. As you could see in that article, many guns are stolen from cars. Well, rich people leave expensive guns loose in unlocked expensive cars. If everyone locks up their guns there won't be as many stolen, period.

On the other hand, if the poor people have home defense, they are less likely to be victims of those thieves. In order to have home defense, guns have to be reasonably priced.

This also includes struggling families whose children turn the way of the gang path... which in end.. means more guns available to criminals. If you had a more expensive item and/or gun, aren't you going to be more careful of it, or store it more safely because you don't want your asset being lost or stolen? Seems like common sense.

Um, no. I could say that poor people know that their gun represents a larger percentage of their income to purchase, so they they'll be more likely to lock it up. A rich person might have dozens of guns and not be concerned about the financial loss (and is more likely to have them insured).

I've been poor more years than not, and I've always been very careful with my belongings because I know that I can't replace them if something happens to them. Rich people that I know consider belongings to be disposable and replaceable.

See above. If they are popular (theoretically) with single moms who want home protection and can't afford a lot, it is also theoretically reasonable to believe that they can't afford much if any home security measures to store for their guns. This also means their guns are probably hidden in the drawer, under the bed, only to be more easily accessible and be stolen by your everyday burglar, who is looking to make easy burglaries without getting caught from a poor class neighborhood.

Even at full size those charts are hard to read so maybe I overlooked the column that listed stolen guns by price. Was there anything that listed them by price of the gun or income level of the owner?

It's not about the the process though. No argument from me about that. It's the issue of cheap guns being readily available at any location near you.

It depends on the state. Guns (cheap or expensive) are hard to legally own in some state.

Any guy without a gun looking to make an easy, effortless hit can just pick up a cheap throwaway, or find some strawman to sell to them.

The article you linked said that most of the guns confiscated from criminals were stolen, not from strawman buys. I'm not sure what you mean by "pick up a cheap throwaway."

The convenience from cheap brands being everywhere then might be a dis-convenience when it means they can also get these guns more easily.

I haven't seen any proof that "cheap" guns owned by poorer people are more likely to be stolen and used in crimes just because they cost less.

 

[Reba]

Are you being serious? This is the justification?
Would you consider buying some ~$30 or homemade notoriously unreliable zipgun? If I was a criminal and super poor that I don't have more than a few bucks and needed to shoot only one person, sure. Even then, I need to know how to make one or find someone who is selling them.. Not all criminals are that brilliant. It makes more sense to steal or save up a couple hundred to buy a stolen gun off the streets.

Zip guns aren't made by geniuses; they are made by teen gang members or criminals. They aren't used for home defense.

Criminals don't save up money to buy guns; they steal them or use cash from their drug sales. It's a fallacy to believe that all criminals are bread-loaf-stealing poor; they just have different priorities for their money.

If I were a criminal it sounds much easier to buy a cheap $100-200 used or stolen gun... and have 5-7 more rounds to shoot, probably at more people, especially in a gang/group type situation. Other than smuggling it across locations more easily, why should I save my money and get some one-shot gun?

The gun is a cheap price for criminals because it's stolen not because it's cheaply made. They don't go bargain shopping for guns.

 

[naisho]

I still don't see what stolen guns have to do with cheap guns that are legally sold. What is the "big picture"? If a crook steals a gun then uses it in a crime it's bad no matter what the original price for the gun was to the honest buyer.

To me, it means more guns being used in crimes. Being cheap, means more guns being purchased, means more guns being stolen. A direct relationship between all variations. It's like this:
Cheap guns = more purchases in cheap guns = more guns stolen/purchased/lost/strawman = more criminals with guns. If I put it in another way. Are you saying that many criminals have the more expensive, luxury, or nicer class choice of firearms?

I read the link about the stolen guns, and nowhere did it correlate the price of the guns with the number that were stolen.

Most guns used in common crimes are generally cheaper guns, which are often stolen or however they obtained it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that stolen guns are usually used in committing crimes. No one is supporting stealing guns or buying hot guns.

Guns are more likely to be stolen from places where they aren't carefully secured. As you could see in that article, many guns are stolen from cars. Well, rich people leave expensive guns loose in unlocked expensive cars. If everyone locks up their guns there won't be as many stolen, period.

How do you know that it's always rich people with their guns stolen especially from vehicles? Poor people can have their guns stolen too... If you look up the most commonly stolen cars, it's generally non upper-class cars. I feel that rich people can afford better security measures, like a immovable cabinet or whatever compared to the choices people with fewer money can afford.

Um, no. I could say that poor people know that their gun represents a larger percentage of their income to purchase, so they they'll be more likely to lock it up. A rich person might have dozens of guns and not be concerned about the financial loss (and is more likely to have them insured).

I feel differently about this, so there is a disagreement in our opinions. I think of some poor people who purchased it in fear or intimidation of some local issue. They might not necessarily have the security measures to accomodate their purchase, they end up hiding it in places to be easily stolen.

Even at full size those charts are hard to read so maybe I overlooked the column that listed stolen guns by price. Was there anything that listed them by price of the gun or income level of the owner?

It is the ATF's released information available here: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/2012-firearms-reported-lost-and-stolen.pdf
There aren't information on income/poverty/whatnot. Those need to be obtained from other channels.

I've been poor more years than not, and I've always been very careful with my belongings because I know that I can't replace them if something happens to them. Rich people that I know consider belongings to be disposable and replaceable.

You are taking it personally though, I've never said anything about any specific person's habit. Let's say this in another way. If poor people are better at keeping their purchases secure, then why are so many cheap and stolen guns being the retrieved weapons in crimes? And often, they're stolen.. Plus I don't see many rich people buying the cheaper guns.

I haven't seen any proof that "cheap" guns owned by poorer people are more likely to be stolen and used in crimes just because they cost less.

This is not information available to anyone, if you have channels that can give that information then you might be able to make a better opinion.

I'm a firm believer that cheap guns are more frequently used in crimes simply because they are cheap alone. Them being stolen from poorer folks or whatnot is just the icing on top of the cake.

 

[Reba]

Same with cheap guns. Cheaper guns can mean fewer options on the gun, or a less well-known name. All guns have to be federally approved on regulations. Even an expensive gun can be a hazard as much as a cheap one. The turning point is in the quantity of the cases involving cheap guns, not the quality of them. If you looked from a perspective involving the number of cases of cheap guns vs expensive guns being used in crime incidents, cheap ends up taking the larger portion of the pie.

Maybe it's just because there are more cheap guns made than expensive guns. I'm more likely to be hit by a Honda than a Jaguar because there are more of them. That doesn't mean Hondas are more dangerous.

I think you are coming from a black and white view. There's an in-between area to me. The price of tobacco and alcohol serve as checkpoint. If tobacco and alcohol were cheaper than they are right now, like $1-2 instead of the $4-6 they are now - people end up being able to afford more = more drinks and tobacco to go around. Not to mention more easily accessible for individuals with less money, such as young people. This = more people in society being affected because of people's temptations/stupidity.

Yet, there are plenty of people who don't become addicted to tobacco or alcohol even though cheap products abound. There are also rich drunks drinking expensive alcohol.

I'm talking about some degree of regulation being factored, not the cheapness in this explanation. I didn't say the word cheap in that sentence. The ATF to make sure nothing shady happens, which never a bad thing. It was a bad analogy, but the point I'm getting at is some regulation is never a bad thing to keep things from getting "too cheap".

There already is regulation in place to control gun sales. What other regulation do you propose to keep things from getting "too cheap?"

Maybe my analogy came across badly but what I'm saying is if the price of guns are kept in check so that it's not "too cheap", less people can afford them and that also means less criminals with guns.

In the USA, a capitalistic nation, we let the market set prices. How else do you legally keep prices "in check?" You can't mean the BATF would control prices.

The overall perspective, as in quanitity over quality of situations. None of us really have any information over which car models more likely to get in accidents, but I'm somewhat assuming (on my end) dirt cheap vehicles are more likely to be into accidents than the more expensive ones just because of the price factor. There's less expensive vehicles around, and more cheap ones around = the cheap ones involved in cases.

That's just odds due to the numbers; there is nothing intrinsic about cheap guns that makes them more likely to be used criminally.

You are making that personal and anecdotal though. Does you or your family represent the rest of the drivers in the USA?

Do you have any statistics to prove otherwise?

The statement that letting people being able to afford cheap guns might be a positive thing. I don't think it's necessarily true.

It's also not necessarily true that it's a negative thing. Besides, the alternative could possibly infringe on their Second Amendment rights.

I don't really want to get sidetracked into a debate about cheap cars and booze and tobacco though, it's not what I was intending to focus on. They are just analogies to bring perspective into cheap guns.

OK.

 

[naisho]

Zip guns aren't made by geniuses; they are made by teen gang members or criminals. They aren't used for home defense.

And they are rarely used for crimes. They are made for a one time purpose deal which I don't think represents the average criminal. Maybe a syndicate hitman trying to get pass metal detectors or something, but I doubt we will see them being used very often in crime situations compared to cheaper/regular guns that cost a bit more.

Criminals don't save up money to buy guns; they steal them or use cash from their drug sales. It's a fallacy to believe that all criminals are bread-loaf-stealing poor; they just have different priorities for their money.

I didn't say save in the sense they made honest money. I am saying save as they salvaged their income, whether illicit or legal to buy a "real" gun. Rather than spend their assets immediately on zip guns/materials for them.

The gun is a cheap price for criminals because it's stolen not because it's cheaply made. They don't go bargain shopping for guns.

Cheap guns means more guns being available. Honestly, are you going to see many H&K .45's out there in the hands of criminals in comparison to Hi-Point .380's?

If you had to take a guess, out of a scale of 0-100%, how many H&K .45's are in the hands of criminals vs Hi-Point .380's?
I'm sure you already have a general sense that there are less H&K's out there, and there's more Hi-Point .380's, which means more HP .380's in the hands of criminals.

If there was a lesser supply of these .380's (whether from price, or supply), there would be less criminal sporting Hi-Point .380 guns. They will move on to the next cheap weapon.