Two guns used in high-profile shootings this year at the Pentagon and a Las Vegas courthouse both came from the same unlikely place: the police and court system of Memphis, Tenn.
Law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that both guns were once seized in criminal cases in Memphis. The officials described how the weapons made their separate ways from an evidence vault to gun dealers and to the shooters.
The use of guns that once were in police custody and were later involved in attacks on police officers highlights a little-known divide in gun policy in the United States: Many cities and states destroy guns gathered in criminal probes, but others sell or trade the weapons in order to get other guns or buy equipment such as bulletproof vests.
Are we going to have to create a federal grant so that wingnut states will destroy guns seized in crimes?
Good grief.
Biscuits
You know what would solve this problem-more guns. Duh
Honus
I couldn’t believe this when I read it. Guns are like fetuses to the wingnuts. They are all unique and beautiful, and it’s never proper to destroy one.
Bootlegger
Delicious irony. Of course we’ve known for a few decades that most crimes are done with “illegal” firearms which are stolen from “legal” gun owners. My small town local paper prints a weekly police beat and every single week there is at least one and usually several guns reported stolen to the police.
scav
so long as somebody made a buck, it must be the ‘mercan dream, no?
Bill E Pilgrim
@Honus:
An early thread win.
Now everyone else just has to sort of tap their toes and ride it out.
It’s not a gun, it’s a life.
cleek
free the guns!
Bill E Pilgrim
@cleek: Experimenting with the pulsing, constantly changing comment?
Interesting idea actually. See how many you can get in during three minutes.
From Our Cold Dead Hands
A firearm is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. Destroy them? We’ll be lucky if they don’t distribute them to tea party extremists so they can “Take their country back” from the evil liberal socialists.
I wish Texas would just secede already.
– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”
– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”
Jonny Scrum-half
I’m not sure that I see the point of destroying the guns. There’s nothing inherently illegal about a gun, so long as it’s properly accounted for and the owner has the legal right to carry. I can see that destroying the guns would eliminate the ironic fact that a particular gun used to harm a police officer once had been in custody of law enforcement. But, realistically, if the guns aren’t sold on the black market, they really are no different from a newly manufactured gun
arguingwithsignposts
You know who else destroyed guns?
gnomedad
If the police hadn’t seized these guns, they wouldn’t have ended up in the hands of criminals! Or something.
PeakVT
A spokeswoman for the Memphis police said gun swaps are a way to save taxpayer money.
Every gun that is recycled into a crime probably costs a government (usually not the one selling the gun) 10x what was received. In this case, the cost is likely on the order of 1000x what Memphis received.
We are so effing dumb as a country.
WereBear
It has occurred to me that the paranoid wingnut crouching in his damp basement, and feeling powerful because they have a firearm, has a mental state not unlike the depressed ghetto dweller, crouching in their lousy apartment, feeling powerful because they have a firearm.
Both compensate for their brooding foreboding and sense of oppression by personalizing the threat and feeling more secure because they can now blow that threat away.
When it is economic oppression that is screwing all of them up, and they are letting gun ownership stand in for true ownership of their own destiny.
gnomedad
Oh, goody, we’ve triggered an ad from the “Firearms Training Institute”! Does Google Ads have an irony setting?
scav
Imagine the bake sales police depts could organize if they made full economic use of things they captured during drug raids. . . .
gnomedad
@arguingwithsignposts:
Turns out “you know who else” is an amusing Google search.
Roger Moore
@PeakVT:
Sure, but that cost is somewhere other than Memphis, so the people who decided to sell the guns don’t give a damn. As long as the problems it causes fall primarily on somebody else, they’ll have no problem keeping the program going.
El Cid
First you libs want to kill all the fetuses, and now you want to move on to an even more previous, more vulnerable life-form.
Bob K
Add this bit from the original AP report – It makes it just so much more special
In fact, on the day of the Pentagon shooting, March 4, the Tennessee governor signed legislation revising state law on confiscated guns. Before, law enforcement agencies in the state had the option of destroying a gun. Under the new version, agencies can only destroy a gun if it’s inoperable or unsafe.
Every gun is sacred!
Every gun is great!
If a gun gets wasted God gets quite irate!
Monty Python Forgive me – I know not what I do.
me
@arguingwithsignposts: Jesus?
SGEW
Ah, the fierce culpability of objects.
R. Porrofatto
Or a gun rack for the Chief of Police’s brand new Anti-Terror Tahoe, purchased with federal Homeland Security munnee.
cleek
@Bill E Pilgrim:
sometimes i say things i and then see someone else has already said the same thing, but better.
Bill E Pilgrim
@cleek: In any case, I liked it.
You said one thing, then when I reloaded from fixing my bad formatting, you had said something entirely else.
A whole new art form if you ask me.
Ari
I’m gonna have to agree on this one. I can see the logic in destroying the guns. As mentioned this prevents the irony and bad PR of a gun making its way from law enforcement to criminals. And yes, there are those out there (especially in Tennessee) who would sooner hand out confiscated guns from the back of a truck to all takers than see them destroyed. But really, what’s the difference between this and any other gun sale (assuming the screening is up to par)? If we want to tighten restrictions, lets (please). But barring that, what does destroying these really gain?
Mithras
@Jonny Scrum-half:
I tend to agree. Unless the police not selling guns they’ve seized somehow raises the price of guns overall, they would have just bought a different gun. I don’t see what difference it makes.
Tiparillo
“guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
gbear
@Jonny Scrum-half:
Because, you know, that system worked out so well in this case.
Do you honestly think that any of the other guns TN sells go thru any more stringent a process?
As usual, XTC was on top of this: Melt The Guns.
“If you listen quite quietly you can hear them shoot from grave to grave”
Mithras
People should click on the Front Sight Firearm Training Institute ad to see Dr. Ignatius Pizza’s pornstache.
Corner Stone
@Mithras: Dr. Pizza is a ridiculous cheese ball of an over the top marketer.
Mithras
Now I want pizza and to go to the range.
trollhattan
@gbear #28
This.
I’ve never met a big-city cop who thinks there’s an undersupply of guns.
I once worked in the melt shop of a steel mill where one day, two guys in suits (in a steel mill?) walked in carrying cardboard boxes. They were detectives, there to toss old evidence and confiscated guns into the furnace. A good day at the mill. Memphis should take note.
Henry Bayer
Ya know, I heard that a couple cars used by criminals last year were traced back to … police auctions of seized vehicles! If only these awful cars had been destroyed instead of sold for useful funds, I’m sure the crimes wouldn’t have been committed by criminals on bicycles.
Idiots, indeed.
bago
@Henry Bayer: It’s almost as if there is a financial incentive for seizure! By this logic the police should be stopping all kinds of people, searching them, so that they can seize the property, and sell it to save that taxpayer money!
gbear
@Henry Bayer:
I might buy into that argument if I believed that the only purpose for busses was to throw people under them.
The only purpose for a handgun or automatic weapon is to point it and possibly shoot it at another person. That’s what ‘protection’ is all about. If people want to argue about who’s the ‘good’ guy and whose the ‘bad’ guy, they can go ahead. I’m just pointing out what that ‘tool’ is for.
Mithras
You can tell a thread’s getting good when the exclamation marks come out.
debit
@Henry Bayer: Yes, because so often people buy a car with the express purpose of killing someone with it.
Or what gbear said.
bago
@Henry Bayer: I mean, nothing bad can come from letting a police department profit from crime, right? More crime, more stuff seized to sell, more toys to play with. Policing for profit!
Steve
A gun that was used in a crime is still just a gun. It’s not like a dog that has a propensity to bite or something. I honestly can’t grasp the argument being made here.
gbear
@Mithras: And the ‘air quotes’. Apologies for abusing it.
Mithras
Every gun destroyed is a new gun sold by the gun makers.
PurpleGirl
@Henry Bayer: No, the analogy is wrong. A car is not meant to shoot and hurt or kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A gun confiscated in a crime should be destroyed — that’s one less gun out there.
I once had a gun permit and owned a .22 rifle. When I stopped target shooting and couldn’t sell it, I put it in for safekeeping with the NYPD. After two years when I hadn’t reclaimed it, the rifle was destroyed. A safer end for me and society. And other gun-owning friends agreed with my decision.
RSA
I think this is a sad situation. I also think that the genie is out of the bottle. Some numbers, from what I’ve read: There are 200 million privately owned firearms in the US, according to the FBI. There are on the order of 10,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year, give or take a few thousand. If all those guns were confiscated and destroyed, it would leave about 199,990,000… that is, about 200 million guns in the US.
kay
If they wanted to regulate gun sales properly, they could regulate gun sales properly.
The only thing the article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is no one has any intention of seriously regulating gun sales.
Looks like there’s a huge hole in the ‘ol system there, with gun shows.
If fiream sales were treated as seriously as cigarette sales or booze sales there would be less carnage, but they aren’t.
I’m going to set up a “cigarette show” and sell without a tax stamp, or maybe I’ll spike the lemonade at my stand with vodka. I’ll be arrested in about 5 minutes.
But “gun shows” are untouched by law enforcement, for some crazy reason.
It’s not a freaking accident.
gbear
@Mithras:
I just clicked the link. Man, that really is a total pornstache.
@RSA:
Unfortunately, Yes.
Mithras
@kay:
Where does that happen? Here in Pennsylvania, all guns – new and used – sold by dealers at shows are treated exactly the same way as those sold in shops: You have to pass a background check run by the state police. It’s pretty strictly enforced. (And they do arrest a few dumb criminals who lie on the background check form every once in a while.) Private sales of handguns also require the background check, so they can only legally occur at a gunshop.
bago
@Steve: The part where the gun becomes a profitable asset. The police should not profit off of crime. They should be incentivized to lessen crime, not profit from it. As soon as people with guns make money from crime, people with guns have an incentive to let more crime happen.
bago
I mean, seriously. What kind of idiot gun-lover wants the police seeing their gun rack as a free bullet-proof vest?
kay
@Mithras:
It’s in the article. They traced the illegal sale to a gun show.
elaine
@Mithras #46
Ah, but in the commonwealth of Virginiaand in 34 other states, at gun shows you don’t even have to be licensed to sell guns and there are no background checks.
Mithras
@kay:
Ah, I see. He didn’t buy it from a dealer, he bought it from an individual who was also at the show. Arizona doesn’t require private face-to-face sales to go through a background check and they don’t register handgun ownership. That’s kinda nuts. It is a crime in AZ to knowingly sell a gun to someone who is legally prohibited from owning one.
Mithras
@elaine:
I don’t know how accurate that article is (the comments contest some of the points, and the part about “bans the sharing of crime gun trace data between police departments and law enforcement” makes no sense), but I agree that all handgun sales whether by a private party or a dealer should require a background check and registration.
drillfork
In the police department’s defense, they’ve probably had their federal funding cut and need the revenue. A few cops dying as a result of shooting sprees is a small price to pay compared to the alternative of, you know, levying taxes to pay for basic public services or something.
gbear
And this is the kind of loophole that allows gun sellers and buyers to have their cake and eat it too. In most states, gun control laws are completely worthless because of the exceptions for private dealers. That is not an accident or an oversight. It’s intentional.
Steve
@bago: I think the incentive here is pretty trivial. The money made from selling confiscated guns surely isn’t a large part of the police department’s overall budget. And I don’t even understand how the police would simultaneously allow a bunch of crimes to happen at the same time they’re confiscating a bunch of guns used in crimes.
Maybe you could explain it to me a bit better. It sounds like you’re saying the police have the capability to prevent bank robberies, but instead they’re going to let the bank be robbed so they can arrest the robber afterwards and sell his gun.
Honus
@Bill E Pilgrim:
As my dad used to say, even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in while.
Ben
@drillfork:
Precisely why they should stop the ridiculous war on drugs… the cops are focused on the wrong shit. Busting ho’s and dope smokers while ignoring murders and rapes. This would help their funding issues tremendously. Of course, cops would have to learn how to solve crimes.
Trizzlor
This is one of the few things Im not a DFH about, so count me in as dubious. It seems like the proponents think that without this minority of guns being sold, there would be some whacko somewhere who would have to go home and re think his plans instead of just walking over to the next booth and buying a non cop gun. The rest are suggesting that cops will be motivated by the e idence they bring in, which logically means that ALL of it should be melted down, not just guns.
I’m all for stricter regulations, but this just seems like something that makes us feel better by cutting down on irony but doesn’t actually accomplish all that much.
The Grand Panjandrum
Closing the gun show loop hole will do almost nothing to stop gun crimes. It just plain won’t. When people with Federal Firearms Licenses were required to do background checks, small gun dealers who mainly did the gun shows stopped renewing licenses. Now in 35 states they don’t have to do background checks on people they sell guns to. Close the gun show loopholes and they will find workarounds to continue to sell guns. Criminals will always have access to guns. And it won’t be any more difficult for them to buy them. They price will go up, but it won’t change by any meaning metric how many guns are available to criminals.
When the economy is booming crime goes down. Make sure people have proper education with prospects of a good job waiting and fewer crimes are committed. But the insane and criminals will always have access to guns. That is just a fact.
I see this as the liberal version of the Security State mentality on the Right. The Righties are all for Bush’s security apparatus remaining in place and abrogation of the 4th Amendment continues pretty much unimpeded in the current administration.
You can’t protect people from every possible bad thing that will happen in this world. Terrorists and criminals live and breathe on this planet just like we do. Stricter gun laws won’t change the amount of gun crime. Guns aren’t the problem.
tde
If you believe that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, there is absolutely no reason why seized guns should not be sold to the public.
The fact that a gun was seized, or even used in a crime doesn’t somehow taint the gun or imbue it with some evil crime spirit or something.
Mithras
Another thing: I wish people would stop using the phrase “assault rifle” loosely. A real assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon that retails for about $15,000. Criminals don’t use them. The things called assault rifles that you read about in news stories are just $800 semi-automatic rifles in military drag that shoot less powerful ammunition than your average hunting rifle.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@From Our Cold Dead Hands:
Of all the crap the TxSBOE has done, this is actually one thing they got right. The United States is a constitutional republic.
I realize it’s easy to believe that every change the board makes is a WTF, but this isn’t one of them.
Honus
@Mithras:
$15,000 for an assault rifle? I’ve got a case of Colt AR15s I’m gonna convert to full auto and sell you. And that’s so you can go first class. At $15k each I don’t have to cheap up and use AK47s. hell, I might even go with HKs for that money.
Mithras
@Honus:
Sure, just tell me when and where you’re going to be with your converted ARs and I’ll
have the ATFmeet you there.Honus
@Mithras: \
Oh, as for that “less powerful than your average hunting rifle” let me know where I can shoot with one of those “less powerful” 5.65 rounds. that it won’t hurt. It is technically less powerful than a .270 or 30.06, but the hydrostatic shock makes it a very effective killer. Tell you what, I’ll give you my 7mm Magnum Model 70 deer rifle and let you defend yourself against me with a semi-automatic AR15. And I’ll agree to only use the 15 round magazines, cause those fake assault rifles are so harmless against a powerful hunting rifle.
Honus
@Mithras:
Just quit bullshitting people about how harmless assault rifles are. You know better and you know they don’t cost $15k. And you know you can buy the parts to convert and AR15 to full auto in the shotgun news every day.
Mithras
Well, Honus, since you’re engaging arguments I didn’t make, I’ll just let you talk.
Honus
@Mithras:
So what argument were you making, Mithras? you incorrectly said that assault rifles cost $15000 and that they were less “powerful” than hunting rifles, which is technically correct, but gives the mistaken impression that they are less dangerous.
When I called you on it, you decided to engage in sophistry, saying I was responding to an argument you didn’t make. So, again, tell me, what is your argument?
And Mithras, you don’t let me talk.
Mithras
Here’s a good page of machine guns for sale. The cheapest is $4,000. True assault weapons (which are selective fire) run around $13,000 and up.
Honus, my argument was (a) people should know what they’re talking about and (b) guns that are called “assault weapons” are no more dangerous than your hunting rifle. There are good reasons to regulate firearms; their aesthetics is not one of them.
Laertes
I’m with ede, Ari, and some others. There are a lot of guns out there, and a lot of them change hands a bit. That some at some point pass through police custody ultimately isn’t very interesting.
Henry Bayer’s analogy, to cars sold at police auctions, is a good one. The attempts to refute it fall short of the mark. It’s true that guns are weapons and cars aren’t, but the analogy doesn’t rest on guns being harmless. Crucially: The analogy rests on guns being intended for lawful use. Most guns are owned and operated lawfully and without incident, just like most cars are owned and operated without incident.
A used weapon sold at police auction is no different, for our purposes here, from a used car sold at police auction. In either case, it’s a simple matter of saving the taxpayer a few bucks and sensibly disposing of state property, property that in most cases will be used responsibly, but in a few cases will be used to do some harm. Car, gun, whatever.
Henry Bayer
Thanks to all for letting me know the only use of a gun is to kill people. Now since that is a fact, anyone discharging a gun should be arrested for attempted murder, and anyone owning a gun arrested for conspiracy to commit murder.
Laertes
Despite this latest weird outburst, I must still (reluctantly) agree that Bayer was right the first time he spoke.
gbear
@Henry Bayer:
I didn’t say you wanted to kill people with your gun. If it’s a handgun, you probably own it for ‘protection’. Maybe you’re happy just to shoot at targets and have never thought of any other purpose for the gun, but If you bought the gun to use as a tool of personal safety, then the purpose of the gun is to be available to use against someone who’s making you feel threatened.
A lot of people get shot because someone feels threatened.
Henry Bayer
The only logical argument for destroying a used gun while a nearly identical gun remains in the marketplace is that you have decreased the supply / increased the cost of guns and this could price one person out of the market.
Ok, here’s a win/win for that argument. Auction the guns off, but require that the successful bidder also exchange another working used gun of similar capacity. The winning bidder for a $400 gun would turn in a $100 cheap gun and pay a couple hundred dollars. Law enforcement gets money. Street value of guns is raised. Same quantity of guns in the marketplace.
Downside? There will still be people complaining that the “evil” gun was let out on the street again.
Henry Bayer
In primitive societies, the crime of bestiality always called for the death of the perpetrator. Invariably, laws also called for the death of the animal involved. Why? Well, maybe the animal seduced the human with evil spirits. I doubt that the argument was that removing the animal from the marketplace would increase the cost of these animals and someone wanting one to commit bestiality might be priced out of the market and not commit the crime.
So while we would laugh at these primitive people, we still seem to be obsessed with destroying these guns because they were associated with a crime. I guess the guns were possessed by evil spirits that seduced the blameless humans into becoming criminals.
Mithras
@Laertes: Apparently, it gets weirder.
Henry Bayer
What I learned today:
1) BJ is a refined place. Using exclaimation marks and quote marks can be gauche. Avoid.
2) Read thread completely before commenting on much earlier posts.
3) Don’t break the Santorum/Godwin’s law. The first person to invoke bestiality is deemed to lose the argument by wierdness.
Thanks all, love the place.
Nancy Irving
I’m not sure this makes any difference. Are you saying that the crimes would not have occurred had these particular guns been destroyed?
I’m no fan of the NRA, but I really don’t see that a problem exists–except a PR problem, I mean.