Massachusetts has a national reputation as a bastion of gun control, but crimes and injuries related to firearms have risen — sometimes dramatically — since the state passed a comprehensive package of gun laws in 1998.
Murders committed with firearms have increased significantly, aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns have risen, and gunshot injuries are up, according to FBI and state data.
Comments
More on tracking criminals? I'd like an expanded bit on what that exactly means, since we have a system for parole that tracks criminals and does a woefully inadequate job of that considering their limited resources. I also really love the hyperbole on both sides, especially the gun-owners who claim they are being disarmed. No its not disarmed until some jack-booted, black helicopter run police forces takes your guns away, right now its regulation like cars, prescription drugs and so on. I can now understand the one gun a month limit with the straw purchasers, but how many of those are there really? And if the identification is so easily faked like for Markoff then it shows the gun dealers are not doing their job, but you could probably find a lax one if you looked, like we used to look for bars that didn't check for ID's carefully.
Seems like we do need that national conversation on guns but neither side is willing to let go of the hyperbole and hysterics to make any sort of progress.
Dehumanist, I really like this post. It's rational and evenly distributed between what some see as two distinct "sides". You are correct, there is hyperbole on both sides of this subject and it's creating a huge distraction from the discussion. Were I to have a say in this on a local or National level, I would like to see what the results have been in low profile gun cases. Also, there's little chance that we're going to see states make rapid changes to their own laws so while that's being discussed, I want to see full public disclosure of all cases and outcomes. Yes, that includes the famous "gun walking" case instituted by our own government. Having all of this data out there in our communities would force immediate change. The chance of a gun charge being plead out or reduced in favor of other cooperation would drop off immediately. Also..... change the disclosure process for minors convicted of crimes involving guns. And....... to draw off of one of your points..... for the love of God I wish the hysterial surrounding zero tolerance in schools would cease. Last week's LEGO gun and Hello Kitty issues are perfect examples of what I'm writing about.
Dehumanist, well, its really not like regulation on cars or drugs at all, when you think about it. We can all legally own a car, without talking to the Police Dept, getting finger printed, having 3 letters of reference, paying a $100 fee, waiting for over 40 days, etc.
I can buy a car, put it in my driveway or garage and it is none of the states business until I drive it out on a public road. Prescription drugs? not even close to the same procedure.
Just for the sake of clarification: A Mass resident cannot drive to NH or ME and purchase a HANDGUN from a gunshop. It is against the law for a FFL to sell handguns across state lines except to another FFL. That is why Markoff used the NY resident attending school in NH dodge. What a Mass resident can do, is buy a rifle or shotgun in NH or ME legally. It is then supposed to be registered here in the state.
Dealers in those states are under no obligation to verify that the purchaser has a valid Mass license. They do however run a NICS background check.
As for all this statistic citing? Both groups obviously attempt to use them to bolster their position. However, the statistics do not prove anything one way or the other. If you do not believe that, then do a little research on Paul Heroux, a state legislator who has some excellent articles on the matter.
What is a fact is that Mass gun laws do create the situation of "illegal" guns being present in the state. However, in all fairness, those same "illegal" guns are not "illegal" in most states in this country. In other words, the effect described in this article only exists in those few states here in the NE that have created a unique situation and are now trying to claim that the failure to reduce gun violence is due to outside influences.
@Dehumanist: Besides jack booted thugs, there are other ways to disarm the population. One is to make the licensing fee prohibitively high, create a labyrinth of laws, set up discretionary "suitability" on the party of local law enforcement, require excessive insurance, etc. Once all these are enacted, the regulations have effectively disarmed the population.
History.... you are correct on the purchase part. I should have addressed that. I have non-resident LTC's in both NH and Maine as well as MA and other locales. I made a purchase this summer in E. Central NH on the Maine border and the hardware was transferred by bonded carrier to my local shop here in MA. I don't know if "long guns" have changed but I once purchased a used rifle in ME and the shop had a site just a couple miles down the road in NH where I had to meet them to take possession. For what it's worth....... Getting my LTC in NH used to be easy. It's tightening up now. Maine wasn't easy at all. Letters of reference, fully finger printed, refresher NRA course. I wasn't bothered by any of it but I was surprised.
“The quality of your gun-licensing laws is only as good as those surrounding you,” said James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist. ............ My opinion: I do like to read Fox's opinions since he's well spoken and level headed however, he's a bit off the mark here. The laws in the Commonwealth are rigid if not a bit onerous but to say that they are at all affected by those in NH or ME or any other State isn't correct. If a resident of the Commonwealth flouts the laws here then the law itself isn't affected, just the person who has chosen to break it. If the authorites can empirically track these guns that are used in crimes, I would like to see the stats on how the cases were resolved. Were the gun charges reduced in order to achieve testimony on other charges? Did the accused meet the proper justice (anyone remember the Bartley Fox Act?). If there is a real committment to reducing the flow of "illegal" guns into this Commonwealth then I would imagine that it would be much more apparent to folks like myself who are relatively involved in the subject as well as the general public, including kids, who are statistically more likely to be involved on the wrong side of the law.
A few years back the Massachusetts Attorney General sued a tire store in New Hampshire for failing to collect the MA sales tax on sales of tires it made to buyers who were obviously MA residents (installing the tires on MA registered cars, for example).
If illegal (hand)gun sales made in NH and ME to MA residents are such a pressing and critical public safety issue, why hasn't Massachusetts sued any NH or ME gun dealers? Is collecting tax more important than stopping the illegal import of guns?
Those places in the world that have stricter gun control laws are the more civilized; the fewer gun control laws, the less civilized. Americans, it seems, have opted for being much less civilized. The gun lobby, with thier bullying tactics and fear-mongering, have created a nation of snivelling cowards, who have been conned into believing that they need more guns, all for the profit of the gun makers. This country is broken beyond fixing.
Hopefully that's a dose of hyperbole. If it's so bad, I'll come over and help you pack. I'm sure you could get someone from France or China to buy your place. Understand that there are those of us who enjoy the benefits of and advocate for the Second Amendment and we are well read, well spoken and we follow the law. Sometimes we grumble about the laws here as well as the overreactions to the proposed changes in any laws. However, we are no less affected by senseless killings than you might be. There is no black and white solution. We can effect positive change through a wide variety of enforcement but you can't remove every killer from society and guns are not the root of all evil. Especially not the ones in my possession.
Lav: Generalizations are a dangerous thing. Your statement about places with stricter gun laws are more civilized can easily be refuted. Most of the 3rd world has total bans on guns, yet they are far from "civilized". No doubt the countries you speak of are places like Australia, Canada, and the UK. Being "civilized" encompasses more than that just homicide by gun metrics, it also includes all other forms of violent crime. The countries I mentioned have not seen a reduction in their violent crime rates, some have seen an increase. I will not state the cause as being due to increased gun laws, that would be dishonest at best since many other factors feed into those numbers.
The lastest craze seems to be the use of the word "bullying". How trite. Now the anti gun folks are trying to "bully" legislators into passing laws by playing on emotions connected with a tragedy. They are also "bullying" by demanding that states withdraw any investments from gun manufacturers, never paying attention to the fact that these same manufacturers supply our law enforcement and military. It all sounds good when you attempt to label the "enemy", but not so good when the label is slapped on your own forehead.
How the gun laws sometimes work in Mass:
Recently (in the last week or so) a man and his adult son got in a fight. The son was assaulted with a baseball bat and another object by father. Injuries were evidently minor enough that son only went to friends house for treatment.
Son went to police to file assault charges, within his rights, of course. Something for a prosecutor to sort out, obviously. However, the son also told the police that his father had unregistered firearms. No firearm had been used in the assault, the father had not threatened the son with a firearm.
All of the weapons are rifles. All except one of the rifles is a hunting type weapon, lever actions, etc.
Headline: ARSENAL SEIZED!
This is a case of the son using the laws to "get even" with his father. In the article, the reporter is opining about how the "illegal" got to this state. It is obvious, the man either had them before the laws went into effect, bought them from friends, or bought them legally out of state and then failed to register them. In any case, the guns were not actually used in any crime.
In this state, we criminalize the owning of a gun for failure to obtain proper licensing. In most of the country, the man could not have been charged with this laundry list of crimes, one for each gun owned by him. Instead, he would only face the assaualt charge.
What will happen now is that the prosecutor will "bargain" those charges to get what he/she wants for a plea.
Only in Mass and a few other states does this happen.
Exactly. The same is true for 209A's. A friend who was on the administrative side of a district court told me that they had several cases of 209A's being filed out of anger (versus fear). No matter how or when the retraction came about, the "defendant" was treated like a criminal. Gun seizure was the very first step. I understand the need for enforcement but a blanket confiscation and permanent record without due dilligence for someone who was a law abiding citizen and just happened to get into normal marital problems with their spouse creates far more issues than it solves.
A bit more clarification on gun laws:
It is against FEDERAL law for anyone to sell a HANDGUN across state lines unless that sale is conducted thru FFL's.
There are over 300M guns in the US. The HUGE majority of them are not in any "registry" (people in Mass have this weird idea that most states have registries of guns, they don't, neither do the Feds). Passing a law that requires registration of all existing guns will meet with very mixed results. If 2/3 of the guns got registered, that would still leave 100M guns out there unregistered, available for sale to criminals, with a premium price since they had never been registered.
Toughening up the laws is nothing more than further Mass Political Posturing and Theatrics. It gets votes, that is for sure.
This comment has been removed.
Lesval: It never seems to occur to you folks that do not like guns that this has some things in common with the illegal drug trafficking, does it? One of the similarities is that no matter how many laws are passed, the "problem" just does not seem to go away. Another one is that as penalties are increased, it does not seem to deter the activity.
Another huge similarity is that about 80 million people do not view owning guns as something that should be considered a felony if the person does not have a "license" or does not "register" with the state government. They don't even think it should be a misdemeanor.
Picture what the situation would be here in Mass if the rest of the country legalized marijuana and Mass in its infinite wisdom decided to make it a felony. Think it would stand any chance at all of stopping the smuggling?
Stupid people make stupid laws.
........and stupid people support stupid laws.
Where are your statics ???????List the crime catagories that back up your retoric. Enough of this Liberal chatter..more facts especially on harm done by law abiding citizens who are legal gun owners. All this chatter is to convince people to let the Government be armed and the citizens be at the mercy of Government armed controllers. ..........clever minipulative government employed individuals make the laws that are to their advantage to dominate the foolish who have both their eyes wide shut and their ears deaf to logic processing of their minds to the facts presented outside the main stream media.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
How come Barack Obama doesn't stop the gun violence in his hometown of Chicago? Chicago has strict gun laws. In fact, he won't even talk about it. And the Boston Globe won't talk about it either.
This comment has been removed.