PDA

View Full Version : Just curious...


markymark
08-24-2008, 11:52 AM
Haven't been on Calguns for a while but have there been any increases in crimes committed using "assault weapons" in the recent past? With the recent influx of CA-legal AR's, AK's, HK's, etc, and with the (limited) reasoning abilities of the anti-gun movement, shouldn't California's streets be running with blood by now? ;)

BroncoBob
08-24-2008, 12:31 PM
Not sure about that:confused:

CCWFacts
08-24-2008, 12:52 PM
No.

First, to be accurate, outside of CA and the few other states with AWBs, there are zero crimes with assault weapons. Assault weapons are defined only by statute; they have no existence outside of that. Their status as AWs disappeared when the AWB itself disappeared. Asking how many crimes are committed with AWs in Nevada, for example, is like asking how many crimes are committed with ugly-looking guns in NV. AW is defined by statute only, and once the statute goes away, "AWness" is a matter of opinion, just like ugliness or any other purely subjective description.

Inside of CA, the fact is that criminals rarely use rifles of any type for crimes. Something like 3% of murders are committed with rifles of any type. If you could do the following:


Make every single rifle in California magically disappear
Somehow convince every criminal in California who would have used a rifle for a crime that, if he doesn't have access to a rifle (of any kind) he would refrain from committing the crime, instead of finding some other weapon


you would achieve a staggering 3% crime reduction. It would be too small to be statistically meaningful.

And note that I'm lumping all rifles together, disregarding any features or legal status.

As for crimes committed with registered AWs in this state, I bet the number is flat zero. Similarly, the number of crimes committed with NFA MGs is a grand total of 2, over the past 70 years.

The whole concept of AWBs is a psychological thing. It goes like this: "People who like guns which look like ____ have a certain intent and a certain psychology, because those guns are scary and look like they are meant to do evil. We can prevent those people from doing that evil by banning guns which look like they are made for evil." The problem is, "evil looking" is basically defined by whatever Hollywood uses in its films and it's impossible to form a statute based on that, and anyway, banning evil-looking guns won't do anything to prevent people from acquiring them or from doing evil with or without them. That's what this whole thing comes down to. Bolt-action rifles with magazines were considered "assault weapons" in their day, 100 years ago.

Librarian
08-24-2008, 1:18 PM
Amusingly, the Legislature also wants this information: In the Penal Code 12039. The Attorney General shall provide the
Legislature on or before April 15 of each year,
commencing in 1998, a written report on the specific
types of firearms used in the commission of crimes
based upon information obtained from state and local
crime laboratories. The report shall include all of the
following information regarding crimes in which
firearms were used:
(a) A description of the relative occurrence of
firearms most frequently used in the commission of
violent crimes, distinguishing whether the firearms used
were handguns, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons, or
other related types of weapons.
(b) A description of specific types of firearms
that are used in homicides or street gang and drug
trafficking crimes.
(c) The frequency with which stolen firearms
were used in the commission of the crimes.
(d) The frequency with which fully automatic
firearms were used in the commission of the crimes.
(e) Any trends of importance such as those
involving specialized ammunition or firearms
modifications, such as conversion to a fully automatic
weapon, removal of serial number, shortening of barrel,
or use of a suppressor.


I wrote to DOJ asking for copies of the reports. I wrote to Dick Rainey, Tom Torlakson and Joe Canciamilla asking for copies.

Somehow they never seem to get back to me on this. :43:

Anybody want to do a PRAR on these?

Publius
08-25-2008, 9:04 AM
Amusingly, the Legislature also wants this information: In the Penal Code

I wrote to DOJ asking for copies of the reports. I wrote to Dick Rainey, Tom Torlakson and Joe Canciamilla asking for copies.

Somehow they never seem to get back to me on this. :43:

Anybody want to do a PRAR on these?

A PRAR would be a good idea. Strange that the reports don't seem to be anywhere online. That may be an indication of the results. They Attorney General *has* filed the report with the legislature every year from 1998 to 2008, although usually a month or two late:

http://www.agencyreports.ca.gov/RTSPUB/CGI-BIN/ReportByAgency.exe/arpt?457

(It's item number 13 on the list.)

Ironchef
08-25-2008, 9:36 AM
Actually YES, there have been TONS of crimes where the weapons were usually reported as being "baby killing evil AK47 death magnet assault weapons of mass destruction!" Of course we usually find out, weeks later, on page 13-D that the weapon was a .22lr revolver or a bb gun.

Publius
08-26-2008, 7:11 AM
Anybody done a PRAR request before? Saw a guide online that suggests asking to review the documents in person. Doesn't the fact that I live a few hundred miles away from Sacramento make that a little impractical?

Librarian
08-26-2008, 3:10 PM
A PRAR would be a good idea. Strange that the reports don't seem to be anywhere online. That may be an indication of the results. They Attorney General *has* filed the report with the legislature every year from 1998 to 2008, although usually a month or two late:

http://www.agencyreports.ca.gov/RTSPUB/CGI-BIN/ReportByAgency.exe/arpt?457

(It's item number 13 on the list.)

Interesting; never visited that site before. It says For a copy of a report, please contact the appropriate state or local agency directly.so I did that again the other day, just after my first post in this thread.

There are no hits on "Firearms Used in the Commission of Crimes" in the Publications from DOJ.

Usually, when I ask the DOJ for something sensible, they email it or send it to me in the mail.

Librarian
09-11-2008, 3:26 PM
Interesting; never visited that site before. It says so I did that again the other day, just after my first post in this thread.

And today, 9/11, I received an answer; the folks at DOJ are entirely capable of being reasonable.

They decided to treat my request as a PRAR, and waived fees; the one they sent, from 2007, is 7 pages. Others to follow next week, if they can find them.

They report on 173 firearms. Big winner: 9mm, with 41 guns. The information is, by statute, "based on information obtained from state and local crime laboratories".

Here's an interesting line:Special Cases (Figure 7)
California Assault Weapons
None of the weapons examined in 2007 were identified as California Assault Weapons.That's interesting because of the next figure, Figure 8. That graph is prefaced by the statement California assault weapon use has continued at a relatively low level since it was first reported.


Year Guns examined CA AW
1999 213 2
2000 221 4
2001 218 8
2002 106 5
2003 82 1
2004 116 4
2005 119 5
2006 146 8
2007 173 0

That's a big variation in number of guns over the years; no explanation for that is in the report.

Thanks, DOJ.

Glock22Fan
09-11-2008, 3:32 PM
Why are they examining them?

Interesting, but does it have anything to do with committed crimes?

Patriot
09-11-2008, 3:36 PM
Librarian:

Is the report hard copy?

Assuming it is kosher to scan and digitize (can't imagine why it wouldn't be), a PDF (or other image/doc format) would make a great post.

:)

Librarian
09-11-2008, 4:14 PM
Why are they examining them?

Interesting, but does it have anything to do with committed crimes?
They're examining them because the Legislature enacted PC 12039, posted up-thread.

The title of the report is "Firearms Used in the Commission of Crimes" - so the firearms noted in the report are supposed to, you know, have been used in the commission of a crime.

Yes, it's hard copy. 4 pages are useful, 3 are fluff. Let me see what I can do with these - they're photocopies, certainly good enough to read, but I don't know about my scanner.

RomanDad
09-11-2008, 4:29 PM
And today, 9/11, I received an answer; the folks at DOJ are entirely capable of being reasonable.

They decided to treat my request as a PRAR, and waived fees; the one they sent, from 2007, is 7 pages. Others to follow next week, if they can find them.

They report on 173 firearms. Big winner: 9mm, with 41 guns. The information is, by statute, "based on information obtained from state and local crime laboratories".

Here's an interesting line:That's interesting because of the next figure, Figure 8. That graph is prefaced by the statement


Year Guns examined CA AW
1999 213 2
2000 221 4
2001 218 8
2002 106 5
2003 82 1
2004 116 4
2005 119 5
2006 146 8
2007 173 0

That's a big variation in number of guns over the years; no explanation for that is in the report.

Thanks, DOJ.


So let me see if I have this straight?

In 1999 we had TWO crimes committed in the State with Assault Weapons???? Yeah.... Thats an epidemic....

Hans Gruber
09-11-2008, 4:38 PM
Now, are those guns used in violent crime or are some of them simply a crime because they are illegal (ie are people caught with unregged AW's part of this list)?

~KJ

Patriot
09-11-2008, 4:39 PM
Now, are those guns used in violent crime or are some of them simply a crime because they are illegal (ie are people caught with unregged AW's part of this list)?

~KJ

Librarian can answer best, but probably this :confused:


(a) A description of the relative occurrence of
firearms most frequently used in the commission of
violent crimes, distinguishing whether the firearms used
were handguns, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons, or
other related types of weapons.
(b) A description of specific types of firearms
that are used in homicides or street gang and drug
trafficking crimes.

Librarian
09-11-2008, 5:08 PM
So let me see if I have this straight?

In 1999 we had TWO crimes committed in the State with Assault Weapons???? Yeah.... Thats an epidemic....

Actually might have been ONE crime involving 2 'assault weapons'

Categories are weapons by caliber, crimes of violence other than homicide (39 guns in 2007 - 31 hg, 4 r, 2 sg), homicides (60 - 49 hg, 7 r, 4 sg), drug trafficking crimes (18 - 17 hg, 1 sg) and street gang crimes (19 - 18 hg, 1 sg).

Overlapping those are 'special cases' - 2 were confirmed stolen, 20 had serial numbers removed, 4 were short-barreled shotguns; all 9 officer-involved shootings (officers as victims) were handguns.

So, there's something squirrely here.

WISQARS says California had 2005, California
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races,Both Sexes, ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95, *U01.4

Number of Crude Age-Adjusted
Deaths Population Rate Rate**

1,878 36,154,147 5.19 4.97

and FBI says
State Total Total
murders firearms Handguns Rifles Shotguns
California 2,503 1,845 1,493 83 76 but but the FUICC report shows just 119 weapons examined in 2005. There should have been a thousand or more. Where are the rest of them? (I think we can safely ignore the difference between WISQARS 1,878 and FBI 1,845.)

This might be suffering from the BATFE "trace problem" - not all guns are submitted to be traced (and not all traced guns have been used in crimes). We seem to be getting a 5-10% sample (at best - probably much smaller), and there's no way to know if that sample is representative.

timdps
09-12-2008, 11:09 AM
From the link:

"Report on the specific types of firearms used in the commission of crimes based on information obtained from state and local crime laboratories"

Why are they examining them?

Interesting, but does it have anything to do with committed crimes?

Glock22Fan
09-12-2008, 11:17 AM
From the link:

"Report on the specific types of firearms used in the commission of crimes based on information obtained from state and local crime laboratories"

Ah, thank you. I hadn't realized that the link that referred to where these figures came from was in a post other than that in which the figures were posted.

However, as someone else pointed out, they must only examine a few of the firearms. So, all we really know is the minimum number or AW's used.

Librarian
09-19-2008, 9:10 PM
DOJ dug up the reports from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 - Thanks, DOJ!

A clarification I missed: ... Although enabling legislation for this report states it should be based on information obtained from local and state crime laboratories, the legislation does not require local laboratories to report this information to th Department of Justice. Therefore, local law enforcement agencies report this information voluntarily, which limits the number of reports received and included in this report.

swhatb
09-19-2008, 11:24 PM
//we need PRAR on these

Librarian
09-21-2008, 12:08 AM
That's how DOJ chose to interpret my request; they waived the copy fees.

Because there are so few weapons analyzed, I don't feel they are particularly useful.

Patriot
09-21-2008, 7:07 AM
DOJ dug up the reports from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 - Thanks, DOJ!

A clarification I missed:

... Although enabling legislation for this report states it should be based on information obtained from local and state crime laboratories, the legislation does not require local laboratories to report this information to th Department of Justice. Therefore, local law enforcement agencies report this information voluntarily, which limits the number of reports received and included in this report.

That's how DOJ chose to interpret my request; they waived the copy fees.

Because there are so few weapons analyzed, I don't feel they are particularly useful.

If the consensus is that this info has the potential to be useful, perhaps we could try to PRAR these local reports and piece them together?

Librarian
09-21-2008, 2:14 PM
If the consensus is that this info has the potential to be useful, perhaps we could try to PRAR these local reports and piece them together?

I don't know what we'd ask for, exactly. I have never seen anything indicating that there is a compilation elsewhere.

For example, we would likely get a representative sample of guns used in crime in California from either LASO or LAPD; the county has about 10 million population, the city 4 million (link (http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po24a.htm)) There might be some argument that a lot of gang-related crime doesn't represent much of the state, but I think it represents much of the crime. ... Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The mayor said suspected gang members were responsible for 70% of the shootings last year in his city, ... (related link (http://www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr03x.htm)) Might not - don't have the data to be sure.

In 2004 (http://www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr07.htm), the county had 7,583 felony arrests on weapons charges, as well as 728 homicides (most committed with firearms, I expect) and 7,533 robberies (likely many committed with firearms).

So, what we might get from a PRAR is a pointer to all the un-sealed court records and an encouragement to have a nice few years going through them. If an agency wants to deny having the statistics already, it's out of my experience how one might determine the accuracy of such a denial. And if the denial is accurate, then the demand for the data would initiate a long records search and tallying project; that would be expensive.

Now, if it were -my- agency, the data would be available, because I'm just that kind of curious. And many agencies do run found cases and fired examples from recovered firearms through NIBIN/IBIS, so that set of requests and results might be small enough to specify. [Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS) , National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) ]

There is also the "Southern California Regional Crime Gun Center" mentioned in some documents; it's an BATFE lab in SoCal. Seems to have started in 2005 - ATF web site has very little about it. Not much else shows up on the web, but apparently it's a local copy of the IBIS technology so things don't have to go back to Virginia all the time. BATF might have the info.