Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:30 am
Time: 12:30 am
Results for guns and crime
6 results foundAuthor: Racovita, Mihaela Title: In Search of Lasting Security: An Assessment of Armed Violence in Nepal Summary: This study, conducted together with its Kathmandu-based partner, Interdisciplinary Analysts, presents original research based on a national household survey covering more than 3,000 respondents as well as focus group discussions and key informant interviews in Nepal’s Hill and Terai regions, as well as data collected from official, non-governmental, and international sources. Since the end of the conflict Nepal has seen fluctuation in the incidence and severity of violence, with relative calm punctuated by bouts of violence in response to political events. While data shows several improvements in the security landscape, Nepal continues to be plagued by high volatility and uncertainty related to political and ethnic crises. The Special Report finds that: Despite persistent volatility, a majority of survey respondents were confident that security situation had recently improved in their area. Property crime was identified as the most common concern, across surveyed areas. Those with a steady source of income, or those carrying money or valuables were more likely to fall victims. Urban spaces and the Kathmandu Valley display higher concentrations of insecurity. Armed violence in Nepal is generally low-tech, using crude or makeshift weapons, such as bicycle chains or sticks, as well as traditional bladed weapons, improvised explosive devices, and home-made firearms. Based on self-reported and perceived ownership, between 41,000 and 84,000 households in the surveyed districts are estimated to own firearms. Overall police performance, accountability, and responsiveness were rated fairly high, with more than 80 per cent of respondents stating that they would seek help from the police in the event of an attack. However, many interviewees expressed concerns about police efficiency, citing lack of training, political interference, and a lack of standardized service as key issues. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Small Arms Survey, 2013. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Report May 2013: Accessed May 15, 2013 at: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/C-Special-reports/SAS-SR20-In-Search-of-Lasting-Security-NAVA.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Nepal URL: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/C-Special-reports/SAS-SR20-In-Search-of-Lasting-Security-NAVA.pdf Shelf Number: 128731 Keywords: Armed ViolenceGun ViolenceGuns and CrimeProperty CrimeViolent Crime |
Author: Planty, Michael Title: Firearm Violence, 1993–2011 Summary: –Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1993 to 2011, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011. For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002. The number of firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006 and then declined through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s. In 2011, about 70 percent of all homicides and eight percent of all nonfatal violent victimizations (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault) were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun. A handgun was used in about 7 in 10 firearm homicides and about 9 in 10 nonfatal firearm violent crimes in 2011. In the same year, about 26 percent of robberies and 31 percent of aggravated assaults involved a firearm, such as handguns, shotguns or rifles. In 2007-11, about one percent of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident. A small number of property crime victims also used a firearm in self-defense—about 0.1 percent of all property victimizations. The majority of nonfatal firearm violence occurred in or around the victim’s home (42 percent) or in an open area, on the street, or while on public transportation (23 percent). Less than one percent of all nonfatal firearm violence occurred in schools. From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks and persons ages 18 to 24 were most likely to be victims of firearm-related homicide. In 2011, the rate of nonfatal firearm violent for males (1.9 per 1,000) was not significantly different than the rate for females (1.6 per 1,000). Non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 per 1,000) and Hispanics (2.2 per 1,000) had higher rates of nonfatal firearm violence than non-Hispanic whites (1.4 per 1,000). Persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of nonfatal firearm violence (5.2 per 1,000). In 2004 (the most recent year of data available), among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of the offense, fewer than two percent bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show. About 10 percent of state prison inmates said they purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source. Findings in this report on nonfatal firearm violence are based on data from the BJS National Crime Victimization Survey. Findings on firearm homicide are based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Report: Accessed May 20, 2013 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf Shelf Number: 128751 Keywords: Crime StatisticsFirearms and Crime (U.S.)Guns and CrimeHomicidesViolenceViolent Crime |
Author: New York City Title: Gun Show Undercover: Report on Illegal Sales at Gun Shows Summary: Every weekend, thousands of Americans in all parts of the country attend local gun shows. Organized by gun-owners associations or professional promoters, the shows offer a chance to browse among dozens, and sometimes hundreds, of vendors. For many Americans, gun shows are a family outing. For the gun enthusiast, there are a huge variety of guns – new and used long guns and handguns, historical curios or related accessories – and for the general shopper there are often other vendors selling clothing, books, or local crafts. The vast majority of vendors and customers at gun shows are law abiding citizens out to enjoy a day with others who share a common interest. Unfortunately, gun shows are also considered a significant source of guns used in crimes. According to ATF, 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal gun trafficking investigations are connected in some way to gun shows. In response to these concerns, the City of New York launched an undercover investigation of illegal sales at seven gun shows across three states. The investigation shows it is both feasible and easy for criminals to illegally buy guns at gun shows. Gun shows are a unique marketplace for guns because they feature sales from two types of vendors – federal firearm licensees (FFLs) and private sellers. By law, FFLs include anyone who sells guns professionally – at a gun store, a pawn shop, from their home, or at a gun show. Private sellers are individuals who are not “engaged in the business” but who may make “occasional sales” from their “personal collection.” FFLs and private sellers are subject to different federal standards regarding gun sales, most importantly regarding background checks and recordkeeping. FFLs are required to check every buyer in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent sales to felons, domestic violence misdemeanants or other federal categories of prohibited purchasers. NICS checks are done over the phone and are generally instantaneous. FFLs are also required to maintain the paperwork that connects each gun sold to its buyer. These requirements are designed to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited purchasers and prevent gun trafficking by allowing law enforcement to trace guns recovered in crime to their original point of sale. In contrast, because private sellers are presumed to be occasional sellers or hobbyists, they are under minimal regulation. They are not required to run background checks or keep records of their gun sales. However, even though federal law exempts private sales from background checks, it is still a felony for private sellers to sell to an individual they “know” or “have reason to believe” is a prohibited purchaser. Private sellers’ exemption from background checks and recordkeeping is often referred to as the “gun show loophole.” Even though this exemption applies regardless of where private sales take place, gun shows form a central market for prohibited purchasers to connect with private sellers who make anonymous gun sales. Federal law enforcement agencies have repeatedly expressed concerns about the impact of the gun show loophole on crime. According to a 1999 report by the Justice and Treasury Departments, “gun shows leave a major loophole in the regulation of firearms sales” because they “provide a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously.” ATF has said “[gun] shows provide a ready supply of firearms to prohibited persons, gangs, violent criminals, and illegal firearms traffickers.” Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. In addition to concerns about private sales at gun shows, ATF has noted that even FFLs who sell firearms at gun shows are a source of illegally trafficked guns. In 1999, the Departments of Justice and Treasury and ATF reported that 34 percent of the investigations connected to gun shows involved licensed dealers. According to ATF’s report, FFLs at gun shows committed numerous federal crimes, including selling to out-of-state residents, selling without a background check, and engaging in straw purchases. A straw purchase – a federal felony – occurs when a dealer allows someone to fill out the paperwork and undergo the background check, but that person is not the actual buyer of the gun. With no records of private sales at gun shows, it is almost impossible to know the exact extent of criminal activity that occurs there.11 In fact, there are no definitive answers to many basic questions one might ask about gun shows: the number of gun shows in America; how many guns are sold at gun shows; or how many private sellers operate at gun shows. The very aspects of gun shows that make them attractive to criminals – the lack of background checks and recordkeeping – also make it impossible to gather comprehensive information about undocumented sales that occur at those shows. To shed light on the practices of firearms sellers at gun shows, the City of New York launched an undercover investigation of illegal sales. The investigation covered seven gun shows spread across three states: Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee. Working undercover, agents conducted “integrity tests” of 47 sellers – both licensed dealers and private sellers – by simulating illegal gun sales at gun shows. The investigation sought answers to two questions: Question 1: Would private sellers sell guns to people who said they probably could not pass a background check? Question 2: Would licensed dealers sell guns to people who appear to be straw purchasers? Details: New York: City of New York, 2009. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2013 at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf Shelf Number: 128962 Keywords: Background ChecksGun Shows (U.S.)Gun TraffickingGuns and CrimeIllegal Gun Sales |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Title: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Investigative Operations at Gun Shows Summary: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has the dual responsibilities of enforcing federal criminal laws regarding the possession and use of firearms and explosives, as well as regulating the firearms and explosives industries. ATF works to investigate and reduce crime involving firearms and explosives, acts of arson, and illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products. As part of its enforcement of federal firearms laws, ATF has conducted operations at gun shows to investigate whether firearms are being sold or bought illegally. A gun show is an exhibition or gathering where guns, gun parts, ammunition, gun accessories, and literature are displayed, bought, sold, traded, and discussed. The types of guns displayed and sold at gun shows include new and used handguns, semi-automatic assault weapons, shotguns, rifles, and curio or relic firearms. The estimated number of gun shows held each year in the United States can range from 2,000 to 5,200.1 These shows provide a venue for the sale and exchange of firearms by federal firearms licensees (FFL) who are licensed by the federal government through ATF to manufacture, import, or deal in firearms. Such shows also are a venue for private sellers who buy and sell firearms for their personal collections or as a hobby. In these situations, the sellers are not required to have a federal firearms license. Although federal firearms laws apply to both FFLs and private sellers at gun shows, private sellers, unlike FFLs, are under no legal obligation to ask purchasers whether they are legally eligible to buy guns or to verify purchasers’ legal status through background checks.2 This mix of licensed and private firearms sellers makes gun shows a unique forum for gun sales. ATF’s investigative operations at gun shows received widespread attention in February 2006 when Congress held two hearings to examine the law enforcement techniques used by ATF agents at eight gun shows held in Richmond, Virginia, from May 2004 through August 2005.3 The first hearing presented testimony from four witnesses who alleged that ATF agents used aggressive and harassing techniques primarily at a gun show held on August 13 and 14, 2005, at the Richmond International Raceway in Virginia. Three of the witnesses were present at the gun show: the gun show promoter, a gun salesman who worked for a federally licensed dealer but represented himself as a private seller at the show, and a federally licensed dealer who had exhibited his firearms collection for sale at the Richmond gun show. The fourth witness was a private investigator who was hired by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to conduct an investigation of ATF enforcement activity at the August 2005 gun show. The witnesses alleged that ATF Special Agents and state and local police interrogated and intimidated gun buyers, targeted women and minorities as potential straw purchasers, visited the homes of buyers to verify their addresses, and detained some gun buyers after they left the gun show and seized their weapons without cause.4 At the second congressional hearing, representatives from ATF, the City of Richmond Police Department, and the Henrico County Division of Police responded to the allegations.5 The ATF representative acknowledged that some investigative techniques were not implemented in a manner consistent with ATF’s best practices but that the “focus at the Richmond-area gun shows was on indicators of criminal activity, not on the color of skin or the gender of potential suspects.”6 The representative from the City of Richmond Police Department stated that the Police Department had no intent to deny any citizen the ability to purchase a firearm, but rather to prevent the acquisition of a firearm in an illegal manner, and thereby reduce crime in the City of Richmond. The representative from the Henrico County Division of Police stated that county police officers conducted only six residency checks related to the Richmond gun show, and that each check took less than 20 minutes. The Henrico police official testified that no gun purchases by Henrico County residents were denied or delayed due to the checks. Subsequent to the congressional hearings, the House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 5092, known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Modernization and Reform Act of 2006. The bill included language requesting that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) assess how ATF conducts “the gun show enforcement program and blanket residency checks of prospective and actual firearms purchasers.”7 The bill was subsequently forwarded to the Senate for consideration, but no vote was taken by the Senate in the 109th Congress and the proposed legislation was not enacted. In light of the congressional interest in this issue, the OIG conducted this review to examine the policies, procedures, and oversight mechanisms that guide ATF’s investigative operations at gun shows. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2007. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2007-007: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf Shelf Number: 128969 Keywords: Background ChecksGun-Related ViolenceGuns and CrimeGuns Shows (U.S.)Illegal Gun Purchases |
Author: Nunn, Samuel Title: Indiana Project Safe Neighborhoods Reports on Firearms and Firearm Homicides in Indianapolis, 2004-2011 Summary: This report provides an overview of selected violent crime and firearm crime metrics drawn generally from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) service district. It revises and updates portions of a previous report (CCJR 09-C03) released in 2009. Based on statistical data obtained primarily from the IMPD, this report updates information about firearm recoveries, shots-fired, radio runs, and criminal homicides investigated by IMPD. The primary dates covered are from January 2004 through December 2010. Details: Indianapolis: Center for Criminal Justice Research, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: https://archives.iupui.edu/handle/2450/5519 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://archives.iupui.edu/handle/2450/5519 Shelf Number: 129542 Keywords: Gun-Related Violence (Indianapolis, U.S.)Guns and CrimeHomicidesViolent Crime |
Author: Lund, Nelson Title: Fourth Circuit Shootout: 'Assault Weapons' and the Second Amendment Summary: Severe restrictions on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines have long been an important agenda item for organized proponents of gun control. For just as long, gun rights activists have accused their opponents of a kind of bait and switch. The main targets of these restrictions have been rifles that look like M16s, AK-47s, and other military rifles, but operate differently. Since 1934, civilians have been required to undergo a costly and burdensome federal licensing process in order to possess fully automatic weapons, commonly referred to as machineguns. Such weapons, which include military rifles, are now rare and expensive because the federal government froze the civilian supply in 1986. The rifles at which more recent laws are aimed, such as the AR-15 and AR-10, have a superficial resemblance to military weapons but use a semi-automatic operating system like those found in many ordinary hunting guns, as well as in a very large proportion of modern handguns. These semi-automatics are now called "modern sporting rifles" by their defenders, who hope to discourage the public from being fooled into mistaking them for machineguns. The debate about this issue assumed national prominence in 1994, when Congress enacted a statute that restricted the sale of semi-automatic rifles with a military appearance and all magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Although the statute contained a grandfather clause exempting weapons already in civilian hands, it provoked a firestorm of criticism, and the Democratic Party promptly lost control of both Houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. When the law expired by operation of a sunset provision ten years later, President Bush advocated its renewal. The Republican Congress ignored him, and the Democrats failed to revive the measure after they regained control of Congress and the presidency in 2009. Evidently regarding such legislation as politically toxic, neither party has enacted a major gun control law at the national level for almost a quarter of a century. Several states, however, have enacted laws that are modeled on the 1994 federal statute. Maryland's version was recently upheld by the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, in Kolbe v. Hogan. This decision offers a useful lens through which to view the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized a constitutional right to keep a handgun at home for self defense. In Kolbe, the majority concluded that the Second Amendment has no bearing on the Maryland statute. The dissent went almost to the opposite extreme by arguing that the statute should be subjected to strict scrutiny. Both the majority and the dissent went to great lengths to argue that their opposing conclusions were dictated by Justice Scalia's Heller opinion, and both of them are demonstrably wrong about that. Taken as a whole, the Heller opinion is exquisitely equivocal about issues like the ones raised in Kolbe. The large doctrinal space left open by Heller is inevitably being filled according to the policy views of judges on the lower courts. Those views are no doubt influenced to some extent by judges' opinions about the desirability of the gun control regulations they review. In a distinct and more important sense, the approach of the judges is determined by their views about the value of the Second Amendment and the right it secures. Heller contains a lot of rhetoric supporting those, like the Kolbe dissenters, who place a high value on Second Amendment rights. But that rhetoric is undermined by a series of pro-regulation dicta in the opinion. The Supreme Court has declined to back its rhetoric up with any decisions actually rejecting the dismissive approach adopted by the Kolbe majority and many other courts. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia and now by Justice Gorsuch, has strongly objected to the Court's passive acceptance of such decisions, but there is no sign yet that the Court is prepared to recognize any Second Amendment rights beyond the narrow holding in Heller. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University School of Law, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 17-13: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029650 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029650 Shelf Number: 149890 Keywords: Assault WeaponsGun Control PolicyGun-Related ViolenceGuns and CrimeSecond Amendment |