Why does the legality of a weapon matter in a crime?

[FrankenHollow]

I'm growing more and more tired of seeing this crap:

Police have no motive, suspects or weapon, although they believe the shooter used an automatic pistol, which are banned in France.

http://news.yahoo.com/french-alps-shoot ... ories.html

Why should legal ownership of the firearm matter, if the act committed with it is a crime?

Last time I saw believable statistics, it showed than less than 0.2% of gun crimes in the United States are committed with legally owned firearms.



And... they're wrong, anyway. Semi-auto handguns can be obtained through a permit process in France. From what I understand, it's even easier than getting a license in the "gun friendly" ( ) counties of NY State.

[Snurd]

It says automatic, but does that mean semi or full auto? I don't know.

The only thing I can think of as to why they mentioned the legality of the gun is because it would be one more charge against the suspect.


(Sent from iSnurd)

[RustyShackleford]

I don't know. If a drunk driver ran into 15 pedestrians at a shopping mall wouldn't it be the first thing you would like to know....is if the car he was driving had a current registration and had passed a Smog test??

[FrankenHollow]

I don't know. If a drunk driver ran into 15 pedestrians at a shopping mall wouldn't it be the first thing you would like to know....is if the car he was driving had a current registration and had passed a Smog test??

Exactly.


Guy robs a convenience store with a knife. But... oh no! That blade length was illegal.

It matters.....?

[Raleigh63]

I am curious about how they know it was "automatic " pistol.
Do they mean like an Uzi, a Mac 10 or Tec 9?

The understanding people and the media have of firearms is pathetic.
They hear automatic when it is a semi-auto.

Perhaps before they start condemning something they should do some research and learn what it is that they are trying to actually say.

[dewittdj]

It is a factor from the standpoint of how the lawyers and judge will attack the case.

If the individual has a history (rap sheet), then it is easier to prove criminal intent in executing the crime.

Using an illegally acquired, procured, or owned weapon adds to the string of illegal (criminal things, a.k.a. crimes) that the individual, now properly designated as a criminal, has committed.

[bagpiper]

I think the reason people care is the continued belief that somehow laws limiting which guns are available have some material effect on crime.

From a political perspective, there is some benefit when we find out that the guy commits a crime with a gun was not legally allowed to own the gun in the first place. Think convicted felon, drug addict, gang member who does a drive by. "See, the bad guys still commit crimes." OTOH, we really hate it when a heretofore law abiding gun owner, with a permit to carry, suddenly goes postal. "See," our opponents cluck,"anyone can go crazy at any moment. Nobody (but the cops) can be trusted with guns."

On a somewhat related subject: notice how often the news reports on whether a motorcyclist was or was not wearing a helmet, or whether a passenger is a car was wearing a seat belt, compared to how rarely they report on whether a bicycle rider was wearing a helmet or even had legally required safety equipment like lights on his cycle.

Charles