It's a Wrestle

As I sit and write this, it is two-thirty in the morning.  I suppose it is the wrestle going on in my mind that has kept me up.

We invested in Netflix and Amazon Prime as opposed to cable for the simple reason that we had no desire to pay the outrageous fees that come with cable TV.  The fee for having cable for the internet is bad enough, but the gouging that takes place for as much as we watch TV is unacceptable.  We had heard so many good things about Netflix and wanted some of the other benefits that came with Prime, so we placed our investments there.  I know there are other alternatives such as Sling and Hulu, and who knows?  Perhaps one day we’ll try them.

Here’s the wrestle.  So many of the movies are R rated and made-for-TV movies have the same functional equivalent.  I’m sure we miss a lot of really good content because of the decision we made to not view that kind of programming, but it is a decision we have made.  In short, we do not need to allow adult-content material to invade our home.  Adult language is anything but adult and sexually explicit or implicit scenes appeal to the basest of desires.  Likewise, I’ve found that excessive violence portrayed on any screen to have a numbing effect, and I think that is dangerous.

The first series we began watching was of interest to us for multiple reasons.  It was a murder mystery and was clean enough to be on family, prime time TV.  But, the season and episodes morphed into unacceptable content and we stopped viewing it half-way through the seasons.  We watched a second series and found it mostly acceptable.  There was no gratuitous sex, but I cringed when I heard the F-bomb once or twice throughout the entire short-lived series.  Surely, I thought, a BBC production would have higher standards, which it did through most of the first season, but as we watched an episode in the second season we were bombarded with more F-bombs and gratuitous sex.  The sad thing is that the series has an interesting story line. 

Yes, I can buy filters and yes, I can skip through scenes that I find offensive, but why should I have to do that?  Is anyone capable of creating a series that is a cut above everything else and yet is not Sesame Street or Sponge Bob?  Have we become so base that we find four-letter word vocabulary, nudity and sexual content, and extreme violence just another walk in the park?  Do screen writers and producers have to throw those in to hold our interest?  Are story lines and plots so weak that they have to be spiced up with these attention-getters?

You can tell me that these are all facts of life these days, that this is just the way it is in our society.  How sad!  But I know different.  I’ve lived and worked in both environments and I know that it does not have to be this way.  I can also tell you that choice of language, for example, is not dependent upon socio-economic status.  I’ve heard doctors and lawyers profane the name of God as good, hardworking men and women who get their hands dirty for a barely livable wage, and I’ve heard the exact opposite – people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale with much cleaner language and values than others who are higher on the food chain.  So, these facts of life in these days may be true in some elements of society, but they are not true in all venues of society.

Call me a prude if you wish.  Just keep in mind that I have my own sins and demons to contend with.  If you enjoy these types of movies and programming and the things I’ve talked about and they don’t bother you, then you are either stronger than I am or you have become so accustomed to it that you no longer find it offensive and perhaps you’ve inculcated it into your life.  Maybe you have an “offensive content radar” that blocks this material from your eyes, ears, and mind.

So, an hour later after I began putting my thoughts down on paper, you should have an idea as to why I’m awake at this unearthly hour of the night.  It’s the wrestle.  It’s not just about movies and programming on Netflix or Amazon Prime.  It’s about where we’ve come from since Andy Griffith, My Three Sons, Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, Murder She Wrote, Home Improvement, I Love Lucy, Gunsmoke, and Laramie.  I’m not just talking about TV programming, movies and streaming TV series.

It’s the wrestle.

Why Did He Do It?

They were honest questions that went something like this. “Do they know why?” Did he leave a note or anything?”

In our quest to understand motivations we often want to rush through the facts and get to the answers. It reminds me somewhat of something a friend used to say: Everybody wants to be a racer but no one wants to run.

I suppose that television dramas have a role to play. It’s the instant gratification that comes at the end of the hour when the crime is solved. During the course of the hour viewers are fed a diet of criminalistics, criminal law, constitutional procedure, and criminology - most of it flawed.


Most of the time when something as horrific as a mass shooting occurs we want to know who and why. In a rush to judgment we tend to substitute “what” answers for “why” answers and then move on. Even then, the “what’ answers are not always clearly answered and defined.

Technology, without a doubt, has moved policing into the Twenty-first Century. Cameras at intersections, parking lots, banks, homes, and businesses make it easy for Big Brother to do his job. Facial recognition, DNA, 1’s and 0’s, have all contributed to the ability of police to do their work, but in spite of all these technological advances, the human element remains the one constant in crime solving. That one constant is the ability to reason - to sort through the technological conclusions and make one overarching determination about a crime.

Solving a crime does not necessarily mean determining why a crime was committed, yet criminal investigators often look to motivation to narrow their search of suspects.

In my world, motivation for committing a crime and why a person commits a crime are two different things. Motive may be determined within minutes or days at the most. Why a person commits a crime may take months or longer to determine, and even then becomes questionable. Making those decisions will first require finding all the relevant information, sorting through the data, and fitting the pieces together into some logical explanation. These days this means looking through information stored on computer hard drives, including the 1’s and 0’s that have been deleted, looking through mountains of photographs, retrieving text messages, obtaining DNA samples, talking to friends and relatives, visiting doctors and therapists, checking credit card purchases, examining travel, visiting bars frequented by a defendant, checking school records, checking intersection and parking lot camera recordings, looking at bank deposits and withdrawals, reviewing military records, digging through juvenile and adult criminal history records, and sorting through anything and everything that the foregoing leads one to. It can literally take months to do this and technology will be of very little assistance.

And after all that takes place, no one, not even the experts, will agree as to why a person committed a crime

I Own a Firearm

I Own a Firearm

I will not insult your intelligence and tell you that I do not own a firearm.  Don’t count on me telling you what type of firearm I own.  Whether or not I carry a concealed weapon is something only for me to know.  There are certain facts that I keep close to the chest. 

I would like to think that I don’t suffer from any mental disease or defect that would cause me to go off the deep end and walk onto a schoolground and start shooting innocent children.  I am not on any meds that would cause me to go bonkers and I’m not in therapy.  My doctor has no problem with me owning a firearm.  Moreover, my barber, who knows me better than my doctor, wants to go shooting with me.

My reasoning for owning a firearm is something that I am willing to share.

I Own a Firearm…

… because I carried one in the line of duty for 25 years.  It became a part of me.  More importantly, during that period of time I saw what people can do to others.  While there is much good out there, the ugly exists and it isn’t very pretty. 

… because my trust level is pretty low.  It has been violated enough over the years that I still sit with my back to walls in restaurants.

… because I sent a fair number of people to prison, some of whom promised retaliation.  I’m easy to find.

… for the defense of my family and for self-defense within the bubble I call home.  Home is more than four walls and a roof overhead.  There are nearly half a dozen police officers that live in my neighborhood.  After they got a phone call, got appropriately dressed, in their car and at my front door the shooting would be over.  Likewise, responding to our home from anywhere within the five square miles of our community would likely take seven to ten minutes.

… for the defense of others.  Among those others are police officers.  We see more and more where police officers are being attacked in their cars or on the street.  IF I was carrying a firearm with me and IF I saw a police officer being attacked by some thug I would not hesitate to aid that officer.  When I travel and IF I am traveling with a firearm, it is for that very reason that I have it with me, not to mention for protection of bubble I call home.

… because of international threats to our country.  No doubt, an attack on the United States would begin with massive bombing of our country, but someone’s troops would be on the ground doing the mop-up.  I would do my part to make sure that the threat of someone behind every rock, tree, or bush had a gun would be a promise and not a threat. 

… because of the other threats we face that come in the form of terrorism and drug cartels.  Those threats are ruthless and if you are my neighbor you will be glad that I have a firearm.  (Chances are pretty good that in Texas my neighbor will be standing next to me.)

… so I can feed my family.  In the unlikely event that chaos erupts and store shelves become empty I will have a fighting chance to put meat on our table.

… to protect myself, my family, and my community from right and left-wing extremists.  There are armed camps for both in this country and you should not think for a minute that they would hesitate to use deadly force if they thought their way of living and their perception of governing was challenged.

… because I have seen in history what happens to a people when they surrender their firearms to government, our own government included.  The benevolent United States of America has a history of disarming groups of people and then slaughtering them.  There is no doubt that the United States Government has bigger guns than what I own.  Tanks, RPGs, F-16s can do a lot of damage, but there are rocks and trees and bushes.

… because I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I was not relieved of that oath when I retired.

… in defense of “our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”  While I may depend upon government to provide these protections, ultimately it is up to me because a time may come when government will not.  It is something I cannot abdicate.

… because it is my God-given right to protect my family from any source that threatens it and because it is my Constitutional right to do it with a firearm.

Due Process for Temporary Firearm Confiscation

President Trump has suggested that when police have reason to believe that a person may pose a danger to self or to others that they should be allowed to confiscate the person's weapons and then follow with due process procedures.  This poses a few problems.  First, most guns a person has will be found in that person’s home.  There are exceptions to the warrant requirement for entering a home to search and seize.  But compared to other places that searches and seizures without a warrant are perfectly legal, searches of and seizures from a home without a warrant are relatively rare.  Police “might” be able to do a seizure of a person’s weapons from the home based upon some emergency or exigent circumstances.  Second, by police entering a home and searching for and seizing weapons presupposes a criminal justice matter.  The criminal justice system is not always the best solution to social problems.

The rationale for seizing a person’s guns before police obtain a warrant is that obtaining a warrant can be time consuming.

I suggest an alternative.

Make the seizure of a person’s weapons a civil procedure rather than a criminal justice matter.  Law Enforcement would still be the best resource to enforce a civil temporary forfeiture matter, but could be initiated by family, schools, friends, social workers, therapists, and doctors.  Set the bar low enough that firearms could be seized with little difficulty, perhaps at a preponderance of evidence.  That would mean that a person is simply more likely to commit a violent act with a firearm than not.  If you are into percentages, that would mean that there is a 51% possibility that a person would commit an act of violence based solely information available.  Then shift the burden to the gun’s owner to show that there is not a preponderance of evidence to seize the firearms.  The burden of proof belongs to the state in criminal matters; in civil matters the burden shifts to the respondent, in this case, the gun owner.  Give the gun owner three days to respond to the civil action.  Allow the respondent to have an immediate hearing at the end of that three-day period, but not require the respondent to have that hearing within three days.

Keep the proceedings at a low-level court like a magistrate court or other court not of record.  (A court of record is one that records testimony.  All courts maintain records of trial outcomes.)  Attorneys would not have to be involved but nothing would prohibit a gun owner from hiring an attorney.  If the gun owner is unable to overcome the preponderance of evidence burden, then allow the owner to return at a later date and attempt at a subsequent time or to appeal to a court of record, such as a district or superior court.  Protect those who make a claim against a firearm owner who acts in good faith, from civil action.

If the gun owner does not file a response within three days, then the firearms would remain with the police until the owner can show that there is not a preponderance of evidence to keep the firearms from the owner.  If after a year the owner cannot show cause to return the firearms, the owner would lose permanent ownership of the firearms.  The firearms would then be transferred to a licensed gun dealer who would sell the firearms at a fair market value to someone not prohibited from owning a firearm and the proceeds would then be given to the (former) owner, less a handling fee for the licensed gun dealer. 

During the period of time that the firearms have been seized, either temporarily or permanently, the owner’s name and identifying information would be placed in the instant background check database.

The idea is to protect people from acts of firearm violence while also protecting a person’s civil rights and guarantee constitutional due process rights.

Letter to Congressmen and Senators on Gun Congrol

I wrote the following letter to Senators Cornyn and Cruz and Congressman Mac Thornberry on February 20, 2018.  I also sent it tot he White House.  Anyone who wishes to copy and send the recommendations in my letter to their representatives in Washington is free to do so.  I simply ask that you acknowledge that the recommendations are written by Jim Burleson and me.

________________________________________________

20 February 2018

Dear Congressman Mac Thornberry:

I am a current resident in Canyon, Texas.  I am also a retired municipal deputy police chief from New Mexico, and recently retired criminal justice professor in the State University of New York system where I taught criminology and constitutional law.  The last six years of my post-secondary education career in New York was spent as an academic dean and associate vice president.

Like the rest of the country, my friends and I have been discussing gun control in the wake of the Florida mass shooting.  I presented some recommendations to my friends and a few have suggested that I present these recommendations to you.  In addition to my recommendations, a friend and former colleague, Jim Burleson, a former deputy director of the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy has added suggestions to my list.  His and my recommendations for legislation are included in this list.

Admittedly, it is not a perfect list for legislation, but it is a start and I believe it would go a long way toward addressing the problem we currently have.  The stark reality is that no matter what is done now or in the future, someone will find a way around the law while others will simply continue to flat out break it.

Here are our recommendations with footnoted comments.  The list is lengthy, but I do hope you review and consider these action items as part of a comprehensive approach to protecting our children in schools while at the same time protecting those who want to secure their Second Amendment rights.  The NRA probably wouldn’t like some of these suggestions.

Regards,

Gregory B. Talley

115 Nicci Lane

Canyon, TX 79015

gregory.talley@yahoo.com

1.     Require that all purchasers of any semi-automatic firearm except for those that fire .22 caliber bullets, be at least 21-years-old.[1]

2.     Require all first-time purchasers of any firearm complete an approved gun safety course.[2]

3.     Continue the instant background check system.[3]

4.     Require at the time of purchase of a firearm that the buyer complete an approved (by a board of psychologists) short psychological screening test (perhaps a section of the MMPI) regardless of the number of firearms a person has purchased in the past, which test can be administered by the seller and be automatically evaluated electronically.  The psychological screening is to be completed by a non-government agency, subject to review by court order in the event of an unlawful shooting.  Failures of the screening would be appealed through an in-person evaluation by a licensed psychologist and ruled upon by a judge.[4]

5.     Except for automatic weapons already permitted by law (pre-1986 manufactured), continue to outlaw the possession of automatic weapons.

6.     Rather than prohibit the addition of items that converts a semi-automatic weapon to an automatic weapon, prohibit the addition of ANY item to a semi-automatic weapon that converts it to firing more than one bullet at a time with a trigger pull, regardless of the rate of fire.[5]

7.     Restrict the sale of video games that depict the shooting of weapons at people or animals, using edged weapons to kill or injure a person, the use of explosive devices, or the use of any other item to kill or injure a person to persons over the age of 21.[6]

8.     Hire retired police or former honorably discharged military members to provide armed presence on school campuses.[7]

9.     Require any person except sworn law enforcement officers to pass through a magnetometer or be subjected to a visual or pat-down search upon entering a school.[8]

10.  Require in-service training to teachers at all grade levels to complete a course that helps them to identify potentially dangerous students and provide the means for them to report their suspicions to school administrators, school counselors and/or school mental health personnel, and the subject student’s parents or guardians.  Assure that there are no adverse repercussions directed to teachers making good faith reports.

11.  No federal funds for any hospital not equipped with a mental hold area manned with qualified personnel.

12.  A comprehensive data base for mental health checks accessible to police, judicial and gun sales.

13.  Expanded family courts to hear wide varieties of mental health cases.

14.  Mandatory reporting requirements for mental health related danger on par with similar requirements for child abuse.

15.   

---

[1] Ruger makes a popular rifle (10-22) as does Marlin.  There are probably other popular semi-automatic rifles suitable for target practice and plinking.  Removing these from permissible firearms would probably meet with strong objection.

[2] Hunter safety and NRA firearm safety courses are readily available and for a nominal fee.

[3] We know that the instant background checks are not perfect, but they need to continue.  If there are things to beef these up then they should be included.

[4] I received a few comments about this particular recommendation; However, something is better than nothing.  Those administering the test need to be trained in administering.  There are sufficient resources out there to score such a test.  When I was in law enforcement we used a psychological screening test that rooted out the most unsuitable applicants.  Some, we learned, were downright dangerous.  Such a screening as a designated section of the MMPI could quickly be administered and scored by an outside vendor.

[5] Doing this will make it unnecessary to come back every other year to adopt new legislation that converts a semi-automatic weapon to a full automatic.

[6] I can hear the First Amendment supporters and manufacturers of video games (and even violent movies) crying foul on this already.  That said, we are already talking about Second Amendment restrictions as well as acknowledging those that are in place.  There is adequate research out there to show that the power of suggestion of these games and videos are indeed powerful and influential.  It’s time to dial it back.

[7] Former police and military police already have a world of training.  They would need training dealing with school security and dealing with youth.  Obviously, they would need to maintain certain certifications in firearms, first aid, etc.

[8] This does not have to be intrusive and it doesn’t have to expensive and lengthy.  It does present problems concerning the entry of students, faculty, and staff during high volume traffic hours.  Though not likely agreeable with the NEA, even teachers and staff could be used in this process.  Another problem would be things such as basketball games, but the object here is to keep firearms out of the schools.

I Still Wake Up in a Cold Sweat

I occasionally still wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.  I don’t do it as much as I did 20, 30, and 40 years ago, but I still do it.

My good friend Doc Brad Spaulding, was a deputy sheriff before he became a doctor.  One evening as we visited reliving our past lives he commented that we’ve seen things that men aren’t supposed to see.  He was right, you know.  By the way, I miss Brad.  A different enemy got to him.

The things I saw bothered me and yes, occasionally kept me up at night.  But, they didn’t have the same impact on me as did the other thing that kept me up.

I was on duty the evening that Richard was shot in the chest.  He was off duty at the time.  It was touch and go for him for a while.  But, as soon as the news came over the radio everyone on the department went on hyper alert.  We all began looking for a suspect and a suspect car without knowing what to look for.  It didn’t matter.  It kept us busy in spite of the difficulty of looking through the tears.

Richard survived and the shooter was identified.  We all breathed a sigh of relief.  However, it was a stark reminder that at any time, for any reason, and in any manner it could have been any one of us.  It could have been Frank.  It could have been me.

Police live on the edge.  I know.  Police do things that most people don’t do.  There’s a price for doing that.  Some officers are killed in accidents while in pursuit of someone who has committed a crime.  Some are killed while responding to an accident or a crime when a person not paying attention pulls out in front of the speeding police car.  Some are struck and killed by cars while the officer is out issuing a motorist a traffic citation or while changing a stranded person’s tire.  Some drown while trying to save someone else.  Some are stabbed to death.  Some are exposed to hazardous materials in the line of duty.  Some even contract deadly diseases while trying to help another.  Some have been poisoned.  Of all the manners of death an officer can face though, gunfire outnumbers them all.

Sometimes the gunfire is in the heat of a gun battle.  Lately, ambush seems to be the preferred method of killing police.  Sometimes police are killed with their own duty weapon as they scramble to retain their weapon from the “bad guy” who didn’t want to go back to prison or decided it was time to kill a cop.  That was my story, but I lived to write the reports.

Police officers know all of this.

So, when the dust settles officers tend to look back and evaluate or assess what they did earlier in the night or day or evening and think about where things could have gone south.  They think about things like when their cars fishtail and their back bumpers hit the guardrail protecting them from a 500 foot drop-off.  Had the guardrail been just a little weaker or had they hit it just a little harder someone would be knocking on a surviving spouse’s door.  They think about drawing their weapons first and the other guy having second thoughts and what if.  They think about the shadows that move in the darkened buildings that were left unsecured.  (Your heart hasn’t sufficiently stopped if you haven’t seen a moving shadow in a building at two in the morning.)  They think about the car that started to pull out in front of them but stopped just in time.  They also think about the times when they pulled a gun on a suspect, finger on the trigger but didn’t pull it.  Of course, it usually is the right decision, but what if he or she should have pulled the trigger.  Or, what if he or she pulled the trigger but should not have done so.  These are the kinds of dream - nightmares - that wake police officers up.  The dead bodies, abused babies, tortured souls - the things Doc Spaulding talked about -  simply add to the nightmares.

They have constant reminders.  Friends they’ve never met end up being the headline; except now it seems that it happens so often that it’s a byline.

I occasionally still wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.  I don’t do it as much as I did 20, 30, and 40 years ago, but I still do it.

The Effect of the Obama Administration of Firearms Applications

I posted something recently saying that a salesperson at the firearms counter at a sporting goods store said that they lost their best salesman in the last election.  It was a true account that took place at the Academy Sporting Goods store in Amarillo on Saturday, December 30, 2017.  The salesman was dead serious.  When I posted the summary of that conversation I added three little words: “Think About It.”

I recently spoke with a salesperson at the firearms counter at the Cabela’s store in Albuquerque.  His comment to me about firearms sales was telling.  Firearms sales slowed to a crawl compared to sales during the previous eight years following the last presidential election.  I am compelled to once again say, “Think About It.”

I believe the vast majority of Americans are concerned about gun violence.  There is a handful of wackos who don’t care.  Thankfully, they constitute a minority - a handful.  However, the debate rages on between conservatives and liberals on how to address the problem.  The extreme left would confiscate all firearms, even from the police.  The extreme right would present newborn babies with NRA membership and a loaded AR-15.  OK, maybe that’s a little extreme for the far right.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a member of the NRA, but I favor their training emphasis, position on the Second Amendment, and mission.  I don’t believe the NRA would issue membership to newborns.

In the course of my studies and research, there is something that rings familiar with these statements from salesmen from two reputable firearms dealers and I believe there is a lesson to be learned in application to gun violence.

Several years ago, a criminologist by the name of Edwin Schur wrote a book called Radical Nonintervention.  In his book dealing with juvenile crime, he presents evidence showing that we have a better success rate at preventing recidivism by doing nothing to juvenile offenders than by running them through the juvenile justice system.  By making a big deal out of juvenile offenses we encourage juvenile offenders to reoffend.

In my own published drug abuse prevention research I assert that children base their actions on their perception of what their older peers are doing.  For example, fifth graders believe that sixth graders use addictive substances at a higher rate than what sixth graders actually use.

Noted criminologist, Howard Becker, stated that the criminal label overrides any other label a person may have once that person has committed a crime or delinquent act.  Consequently, that person will continue to offend, often escalating in seriousness.  Likewise, Edwin Sutherland in his Differential Association Theory states that criminal behavior is learned, which learning includes the techniques of committing the crimes and the motives, drives, attitudes, and rationalizations for committing those crimes.  Further, building on the work of Shaw and McKay, Sutherland describes a type of Social Disorganization that exists that breeds criminal behavior. David Matza in explaining his theory on Drift says that criminals not only drift in and out of criminality, but that delinquent (criminal) behavior is likely to occur in areas of the social structure in which control has been loosened, freeing the person to respond to whatever criminal forces happen to come along.  (See Theoretical Criminology, by Vold and Bernard for discussions on Labeling, Differential Association, Social Disorganization, and Delinquency and Drift.)

Understanding that there is no one theory that fits all, it is incumbent upon serious students of crime to put the pieces together, pulling pertinent parts from appropriate theories and aligning them to meet the requirements of any given situation.  There is no such thing as a common theory to explain all crime.  Likewise, there is no such thing as a common theory to explain any specific crime.  The number of theories to explain behaviors of multiple people for a specific type of crime would be as big as the number of people engaged in those behaviors.  It would be irresponsible to state that all mass murderers commit their crimes because of Theory A or Theory B or Theory X.  Nonetheless, many of the mass murderers and spree killers share several things in common.  It is that common thread we look for in the process of explaining criminal behavior.  That common thread acts as a springboard for looking deeper into the actual nexus between offender and offense.

Since we are interested in gun violence I suggest that we first look at the anecdotal evidence provided by the two firearms sales clerks.  Firearm sales have slowed to a crawl since the last presidential election.  We need only review recent history to understand that the Second Amendment was under serious threat from the Obama Administration and a Democrat Party controlled Congress.  A period of several months passed when it was impossible to find firearm ammunition.  Though that period has passed, it is still difficult in many places to find .22 caliber ammunition, popular for plinking.  The lack of availability of ammunition caused widespread panic and fear among firearms owners and many gun owners began to stockpile ammunition.

The threat of removal of ammunition is over and the threat of confiscation of firearms and making firearm purchases more difficult have ceased.  Once again ammunition of all calibers is found on sporting goods shelves firearm sales have slowed.

Longitudinal studies are helpful in looking at trends and allow us to compare one unit of time to several other units of time.  While there are no control groups for comparison we can at least look to see what historical events took place during the time being studied which allows us to make some assumptions about the effects of those events on the data.

As I began researching the history of firearms sales over the past 20 years I found a number of articles that actually used the wording of the Academy Sporting Goods salesman that firearms dealers lost their best salesman when President Obama went out of office.  So, I dug a little deeper.

I checked the The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, database for answers.  At first, I checked 18 selected states as sort of a check against the news articles and salesman’s comments.  What I found was astounding.  There not only was a noticeable increase in instant criminal background checks beginning with the Obama Administration, but there was also a noticeable decline in background checks during the beginning of the Trump Administration.  Of course, we have only one year to look at with the Trump Administration, but there is more.

After reviewing the statistics for the 18 states I continued my search and found data for criminal background checks from 1999 through 2017 and all of January 2018.  I selected January 2018 as it is the only month available at this time and compared it to each January from 1999 through 2017.

Year     January Year Total

1999 591,355 9,138,123 

2000 639,972 8,546,037 

2001 640,528 8,910,191 

2002 665,803 8,454,322 

2003 653,751 8,481,588 

2004 695,000 8,687,671 

2005 685,811 8,952,945 

2006 775,518 10,036,933 

2007 894,608 11,177,335 

2008 942,556 12,709,023 

2009 1,213,885 14,033,824 

2010 1,119,229 14,409,616 

2011 1,323,336 16,454,951 

2012 1,377,301 19,592,303 

2013 2,495,440 21,093,273 

2014 1,660,355 20,908,547 

2015 1,772,794 23,141,970 

2016 2,545,802 27,538,673 

2017 2,043,184 25,235,215 

2018 1,000,530

The results again were dramatic as can be seen in the graphs below. 

Looking at the numbers and the graphs in another way helps us to understand the impact that the Obama Administration has had on the sale of firearms, or at least on the applications to purchase firearms.  The eight years prior to the Obama Administration from 2000 to 2007 there was a 37.8% increase in the number of applications.  The same eight-year time frame in the Obama Administration from 2008 to 2016 saw a 116.7% in firearm applications.

Now, criminal background checks do not necessarily represent the total number of firearms purchases.  First of all, there are denials.  And, states have their own restrictions on sales.  Not all states are equal when it comes to firearms sales.  Secondly, private sales are not included and clearly stolen firearms are not included.  However, if the background checks are representative of legitimate interests in purchasing firearms, then we can assume that there was a fairly significant jump in the number of firearms purchased during the Obama Administration.  Why is this important?  Simple.  President Obama had a campaign of reducing firearms in the hands of citizens which stimulated a scare among people that their guns would be taken away.  Therefore, people bought guns when they had the chance.  That threat went away with the Trump Administration.  Of course, we’ll need a few more years to see what effect the Trump Administration has on firearms sales before we can conclude that his administration’s stance on firearms has any bearing on the sales of firearms.  But, it is hard to deny the decline in firearms purchase applications during Turmp’s first year in office.

If the trend holds true for the rest of the Trump Administration, then we may be able to conclude that if you want to slow down gun sales then stop the threat of taking guns away or making the purchase of a firearm more difficult.

However, tying the sales of firearms to murder rates by firearms is a bit more tricky.  FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) are not especially helpful in sorting through the data.  One thing is clear and that is that murder and non-negligent manslaughter have steadily decreased over the years.  The other thing we do know is that these murder rates were at a low from 1950 through the mid-1960s.  Then a dramatic increase took place until the early 1990s and took a plunge from about 25,000 per year to about 15,000 in 2010 (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27).

Follow-up study needs to be conducted to determine the role of firearms in each murder during this short study.

Conclusions

1.     You cannot slow down the sales of firearms with the perceived threat of restricting firearms ownership.

2.     If you want to slow down firearms purchases and ownership you need to remove the perceived threat of restricting firearms ownership.

3.     The number of murders appear to decrease with the number of firearms in circulation.

4.     There may actually be something to the assertion that guns don’t kill people but that people kill people.

5.     Think About It.

Note: This is not a purely academic study.  However, statistics were obtained from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  See also Theoretical Criminology by Vold and Bernard.