Finally We Know the "Truth": NYT


PDA






fedlaw
December 23, 2008, 03:23 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/opinion/23tue2.html

December 23, 2008
Editorial
Price of Lax Gun Laws

For years, the gun lobby has defeated new gun control laws partly by arguing that stronger laws do not deter crime. A study prepared by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group headed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, should finally put that myth to rest.

The study analyzed trace data for guns used in connection with crimes during 2007. The data reveal a strong correlation between weak state gun laws and higher rates of in-state murders, police slayings and sales of guns used in crimes in other states.

Many states have enacted strong gun laws to supplement inadequate federal ones, including mandatory background checks on gun show sales. States requiring the same background checks at gun shows as those required for store purchases show an export rate for guns used in crimes that’s nearly half the national average. This argues for Congressional action to end the gun-show loophole nationally. States with weak gun laws produce different outcomes. More than half the guns recovered in out-of-state crimes last year were supplied by Georgia, Florida, Texas, Virginia and six other states where weak laws make it easy for gun traffickers and other criminals to obtain weapons.

Weak gun laws also put a state’s own citizens at risk. There were nearly 60 percent more gun murders in the 10 states where exports were highest than in the states with low export rates — and nearly three times as many fatal shootings of law enforcement officers.

The study by the mayors’ group isn’t the first to document the link between weak gun laws and gun violence or the “iron pipeline” by which guns flow from states with weak gun laws into states with strong ones. Still, the numbers are startling. They explain why the gun lobby resisted their release, and they provide a powerful retort to those who claim tougher gun laws don’t work.

If you enjoyed reading about "Finally We Know the "Truth": NYT" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
December 23, 2008, 03:26 PM
a bipartisan group headed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York

I didn't know it was possible to use those things in a sentence together.

I'm impressed.

Jim K
December 23, 2008, 03:37 PM
We will have many more of those cooked "studies" and "surveys" and "polls" until President Obama is "reluctantly forced" to order total gun confiscation, as he wants to do anyway.

If that doesn't do the job we will see more mass murders as the gun control gang sets up the slaughter of more innocent people to promote their agenda.

Jim

Pongwoo
December 23, 2008, 03:40 PM
here's a quote for you more guns equals less crime and that study is biased

fedlaw
December 23, 2008, 03:49 PM
Chicago hits 500: obviously the fault of those pansy states with their weak gun laws: Chicago records year's 500th homicide

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/chicago-records-500th-murder-of-the-year.html

TexasRifleman
December 23, 2008, 03:50 PM
nevermind, this isn't worth the discussion lol

fedlaw
December 23, 2008, 03:57 PM
"God created men equal, Col. Colt made them equal..."

This is the problem for folks like Bloomberg and his ilk.

subknave
December 23, 2008, 04:05 PM
I would like to see a copy of this report. i don't think it tells the whole truth. I think it was mark twain that said there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

While it seems to be true that there were more gun traces performed due to homicide in texas and florida than new york there could be a number of reasons for that. One reason could be if the police department didn't request a trace on every homicide and another did, or some other administrative reason. It also could be that gun traces in say new york were traced due to a possession violation and not a murder even though it was used in a murder. There are many ways the data could be slanted by the way it is reported.

LaEscopeta
December 23, 2008, 04:16 PM
We will have many more of those cooked "studies" and "surveys" and "polls" until President Obama is "reluctantly forced" to order total gun confiscation, as he wants to do anyway.And how do we know the study refered to in the original post is cooked? I haven't read it so I don't know one way or the other. When/if anyone reads it, we may have reasons to say this study is cooked.

"It disagrees with my belief" is not a reason.

"Everything Bloomberg and/or the NYT says is wrong" is not a reason.

"Bloomberg and/or the NYT have been wrong on this that and the other thing in the past, therefor they are wrong now" is not a reason either.

TexasRifleman
December 23, 2008, 04:20 PM
And how do we know the study refered to in the original post is cooked? I haven't read it so I don't know one way or the other. When/if anyone reads it, we may have reasons to say this study is cooked.


All studies are "cooked" one direction or another or they would all agree with each other.

The only purpose of these things is to put spin on the argument, whether pro gun or anti gun.

Speedo66
December 23, 2008, 05:04 PM
I think the Rockefeller Drug Laws and police overtime ("collars for dollars") for quality of life offenses have done more, by putting more people in jail, to lower crime stats than anything else.

Every other crime in NYC involves guns, the laws have done nothing to reduce their numbers on the street.

RP88
December 23, 2008, 05:14 PM
well, considering the size of both NY's population and their freakishly huge police force, it makes sense.

One officer dead in a state like NY won't carry a weight compared to one officer dead in Virginia, where I'd venture to say has probably significantly less of a police force throughout the entire state than what New York has stationed in just NYC alone.

Simple numbers of (dis)proportion.

legaleagle_45
December 23, 2008, 07:25 PM
Mayors Against Illegal Guns = funded by the Joyce Foundation.... which also, funds VPC and some other major antigun groups. It is bi partisan in the sense that there are some antigun republicans <gasp>.

The "study" was not a real "study" but merely cherry picking stats provided by BATFE, which stats can be found here:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/index2007.htm

Ahhh... if I had the time and the space to pick that study apart... you will just have to settle for one...

One of the unstated conclusions of the study is that there is an active illegal gun trade going on in which guns are purchased in one locale for illegal transfer and illegal use in another locale. Thus we have this:

More than half the guns recovered in out-of-state crimes last year were supplied by Georgia, Florida, Texas, Virginia and six other states where weak laws make it easy for gun traffickers and other criminals to obtain weapons.

What they fail to disclose is that the average time from original purchase to illegal use is ~10.3 years. Which leads one to conclude that this is either an incredibly complex group of gun runners who wharehouse these guns for an awfully long time before selling them to crooks, or that the unstated conclusion of this study is full of manure...

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 07:36 PM
Chicago hits 500: obviously the fault of those pansy states with their weak gun laws: Chicago records year's 500th homicide

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...-the-year.html

Well, and the interesting thing to note there, is you can jump on 80 Headed due west, right over into Indiana - and all those pesky IL laws are non-existent. I'm pretty sure that's the exact point of this study.
Having lived in North Western Indiana a good part of my life, it was a pretty commonly known fact that various elements from Chicago would come to Indiana to buy guns/ammo/whatever that they couldn't get in IL, or just to hopefully make their tracks harder to retrace.


well, considering the size of both NY's population and their freakishly huge police force, it makes sense.

One officer dead in a state like NY won't carry a weight compared to one officer dead in Virginia, where I'd venture to say has probably significantly less of a police force throughout the entire state than what New York has stationed in just NYC alone.

Simple numbers of (dis)proportion.


Virginia's entire population is just over 7.7 million.
There's over 15 million people in NYC alone.

Yea - there's certainly something to be said for proportion alright. Apples? Oranges anyone?

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 07:38 PM
I love how rather then people actually reading the report to see what it says - within minutes of even hearing about such a report - it's full on assault on the source instead.

Perhaps it is BS - perhaps it is cooked. Who knows. Certainly not a single person on here - cause I bet not one of you has bothered to even find a copy of this report yet - IF it's even been released to the public yet.

legaleagle_45
December 23, 2008, 07:46 PM
I love how rather then people actually reading the report to see what it says - within minutes of even hearing about such a report - it's full on assault on the source instead.

I read it Sinixstar. It is here:

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

I stand by my critique...:neener:

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 07:53 PM
Brilliant! We'll fight illegal guns by... passing more laws! If the laws in place aren't being obeyed, we'll pass some new ones, which I'm sure will be obeyed! :rolleyes:

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 07:57 PM
I read it Sinixstar. It is here:

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....port_final.pdf

I stand by my critique...


And in skimming through this real quick - what i'm seeing is that it says states with less strict gun laws tend to be origination points for guns used in crimes in other states.
What exactly is so amazingly outrageous about that? I'm surprised they even needed to do a study on this?
I mean - people have even joked about on here. "What good are these laws if you can drive across the border and get whatever you want?"

It's the same reason why there's a casino directly inside the Nevada border, along every highway that enters the state.

I mean, can you explain to me what's so amazingly outrageous about this? Aside from the fact that it's from the NYT and this Mayor's group - I don't really see much anyone can argue about. They're not talking about the level of violence within these states, they're talking about the export of guns from these states to commit crimes elsewhere.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 07:58 PM
Brilliant! We'll fight illegal guns by... passing more laws! If the laws in place aren't being obeyed, we'll pass some new ones, which I'm sure will be obeyed!


Can you show me where for example - it was suggested that more laws be passed banning guns in NYC? I didn't exactly see that.

legaleagle_45
December 23, 2008, 08:14 PM
I mean, can you explain to me what's so amazingly outrageous about this? Aside from the fact that it's from the NYT and this Mayor's group - I don't really see much anyone can argue about.

Nothing really amazing about that at all. Nor is it amazing that the resource states are usually close geographically to the use state. However, what is amazing is the conclusion which they whish you to adopt. Which is that there is an active illicit gun trade going on between the lax states and the strict states. They fail to reveal the time to crime data, which appears upon page 7 of their source, while pushing the data found upon page 6.

The data source is the BATFE link which I gave previously. Lets use NY as an example. Here is the BATFE data on NY:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/2007/newyork07.pdf

The primary data they use is found on page 6. Nowhere do they mention page 7, which shows that the average time to crime from original retail purchase to illegal use is 12.40 years for New York.... which kinda undercuts their thesis that there is an active "iron pipline" (their words) of illegal gun smuggeling.

Old Fuff
December 23, 2008, 08:20 PM
They draw some interesting conclusions without bothering to support them, such as.

1. The provided statistics show that more guns (apparently) flow into strict-control states from less-strict states.
2. Gun shows are held in the less-strict states.
3. Therefore we need to close the so-called gun show loophole.

But nowhere do they show any viable evidence of a connection between the flow of firearms, and gun shows.

Incidentally, in Michigan a person purchasing a handgun from any source – a licensed dealer, private person or at a gun show – must have a police-issued purchase permit prior to the sale. Clearly they have more then closed the gun show loophole and then some – since around the middle 1930’s. But with this background being available there is no statistical evidence that this “prior permission” environment has had any noticeable success in reducing criminal access to firearms, or that an inordinate number of firearms recovered from criminals came from gun shows.

Nor do they ever, ever mention the BATF&E statistic concerning a lag of +/- 10 years between the tracing of a firearm vs. when it was originally sold in many cases.

I cannot and do not consider that this evidence, which runs counter to both their conclusions and agenda, was accidentally left out of their “fair and balanced” report. It is a typical gun control snow job.

legaleagle_45
December 23, 2008, 08:25 PM
Can you show me where for example - it was suggested that more laws be passed banning guns in NYC?

Not sure if this answers your question... the group is advicating the following laws be adopted nationwide:

1.) Background Checks for All Handgun Sales at Gun Shows

2.) Purchase Permits for All Handgun Sales

3.) Mandatory Reporting of Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement

4.) Local Control of Firearms Regulations

5.)State Inspection of Gun Dealers

Those recommendations begin on pg 10 of the report. They do not seem to be advocating a ban on guns, unless you extrapolate 4. You might take a look at 4... they use some slight of hand to place California in the group of states that do not preempt local gun laws even though California does have such a law...

shooter429
December 23, 2008, 08:37 PM
What is so amazing is that anybody with half a brain would buy this stuff. It is becoming more and more clear to me that there really are a lot of very ignorant and naive people in this country.

Doesn't everyone know you need to consider the source, first of all.

And even if there was a correlation, correlation does not causation make.

Its going to be a long four years.

Shooter429

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 08:47 PM
The primary data they use is found on page 6. Nowhere do they mention page 7, which shows that the average time to crime from original retail purchase to illegal use is 12.40 years for New York.... which kinda undercuts their thesis that there is an active "iron pipline" (their words) of illegal gun smuggeling.


I think that's a little bit of a debatable point to make.
Here's why

When you look at the guns most commonly used in crimes, I believe the FBI statistics said the Lorcin .22 was the most common. Why is this? For the same reason that more criminals don't use AR-15s : cost. Not just up-front cost, but potential losses (being chased by the police and gotta toss your gun in a storm drain or off a bridge), and replacement costs (now that you ditched your gun, you need a new one).

That being said - used guns tend to be cheaper then new guns. I mean a new glock will run you $500 legally. Illegally could be as much as 4-5 times that.

Given these ideas - I don't think a 12 year "time to crime" rate is all that unreasonable. One piece of data that's missing from the BATFE report (at least I didn't see it) is "12 years" from what point? From the initial sale when the gun was new? From the last recorded sale? What? It does kind of make a difference.

At the end of the day though - the argument that they're making is that because of the lax laws, these guns are being had by criminals under circumstances completely unknown. Gun shows up on the street in NYC - it gets traced, and all anybody can come up with is "last we knew this was sold to a guy 12 years ago in Georgia". Completely defeats the purpose of tracing.

I think part of the problem - and this is certainly nothing against anyone here - is you're looking at it from the perspective of a law-abiding citizen. If you think like a criminal, and you look at these figures in the context of how a criminal can/will operate - they do make perfect sense. While you might think "12 years is a long time, kind of undercuts their argument" - it really doesn't. Age of the gun really means absolutely nothing. I mean, if you get shot in the head with a 12 year old 9mm, are you somehow going to be less dead then if it was bought last week? Didn't think so.

sendarope
December 23, 2008, 08:51 PM
In "more guns less crime" and "transfer of wealth" a clear case is made for concealed carry in EVERY state because the violent crime almost instantly goes down when CCW is made "Shall issue" instead of "may issue"...These studies were done county by county instead of state by state and provide a far better measure of reality.

Too bad they won't use that study.

It doesn't take statistics to see the obvious right in front of our eyes....more guns does equal less crime.

legaleagle_45
December 23, 2008, 08:59 PM
One piece of data that's missing from the BATFE report (at least I didn't see it) is "12 years" from what point?

From last recorded retail sale date from a licensed dealer.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect08-j.html

Time-to-crime is the period of time (measured in days) between a firearm's retail sale and law enforcement's recovery of the firearm in connection with a crime.

P90shooter
December 23, 2008, 08:59 PM
I'd love to see the converse study of this :)

I just love the notion that because one state is more tolerant of guns it relates to the decrease of gun violence in that state but increases in another.

highlander 5
December 23, 2008, 09:04 PM
Anyone who takes stock in anything Bloomberg and "Mumbles" Menino (as one of our local columnist calls him) needs a serious skull cleaning. Both these clowns are nothing more than elitists who care little for the people and there only concern is themselves and the press they get bashing the little folk

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 09:18 PM
I just love the notion that because one state is more tolerant of guns it relates to the decrease of gun violence in that state but increases in another.
:D

If one state has tougher prison sentences, the criminals would all flock to the state with easier sentences, right? Same thing.

withdrawn34
December 23, 2008, 10:14 PM
It is just an issue of porportions/percentages, one the oldest tricks in statistics.

I also don't understand how a single study refutes or proves anything. This editorial makes it seems like Jesus himself came back and said which parts of the bible apply and which don't.

Rather, this is just another study. No different than the commission for oranges releasing a study says oranges are better. The commissions for apples then releases a study saying apples are better.

Of course the conclusion was foregone. If you start with a specific conclusion in mind, the data you collect will start to take the shape of that conclusion. If it doesn't, you'll form some rationale to make it fit your conclusion.

Or, there'll be a conclusion for the naive person that won't stand up under scrutiny by a thinking person. For example, the issue of proportions as had been discussed earlier.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 10:16 PM
In "more guns less crime" and "transfer of wealth" a clear case is made for concealed carry in EVERY state because the violent crime almost instantly goes down when CCW is made "Shall issue" instead of "may issue"...These studies were done county by county instead of state by state and provide a far better measure of reality.

Too bad they won't use that study.

It doesn't take statistics to see the obvious right in front of our eyes....more guns does equal less crime.

It depends on which set of statistics you want to look at.

People like to use Texas as a "perfect example". Well - that perfect example is pretty flawed, since the Brady Bill went into effect at almost exactly the same time.

So - Pro-2nd groups look at the fact the GWB (as governor) signed the CCW laws in Texas in '95, and crime went down.
The Anti-2nd groups look at the fact that the Brady Bill went into effect in early '95, and crime went down.

Who's right? It's impossible to say - and that's a big part of the reason why the DOJ reports were "inconclusive".

It's easy to say "if everybody just did it my way - everything would be fine". The issues tend to be far more shades of gray then black and white though.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 10:20 PM
I'd love to see the converse study of this

I just love the notion that because one state is more tolerant of guns it relates to the decrease of gun violence in that state but increases in another.


It's a simple issue of supply and demand.
Supply in this state is more difficult to come by.
If I drive 3 hours away, Supply is endless and cheap.
I can then buy what I want, drive back home, and sell it at a huge markup.

Again, I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Why do you think gun bans in Chicago don't work? Jump on 80 East, 2 hours later pull up in Lake County or Porter County Indiana, and you've got damn near anything you want at your fingertips.

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 10:23 PM
It's illegal to buy handguns out of state already, and felons can't buy. Also, handgun bans don't work even for island nations (England).

So - Pro-2nd groups look at the fact the GWB (as governor) signed the CCW laws in Texas in '95, and crime went down.
The Anti-2nd groups look at the fact that the Brady Bill went into effect in early '95, and crime went down.
The CCW was a Texas-only bill, while the '94 ban was national. Texas crime went down far faster than the national average, leading to the conclusion that it was the CCW.

withdrawn34
December 23, 2008, 10:32 PM
But its not like you can legally buy guns in an area with "lax rules." I don't see why it is so "obvious" that most of those guns come from areas with "lax laws."

AFAIK a person, for example, a NYC resident who has a record, cannot just drive to Florida, buy a few handguns, and then go back. They would not only have to pass a background check, but also they'd have to be a resident here - or get it shipped back to a FFL in their home state, assuming that its legal there, which it wouldn't be in NYC without the permits.

So what exactly do they mean? Do they mean they are buying it all from private sellers at gun shows? I really doubt that, plus many states already have their own regulations closing the "loophole."

That would prevent even a strawman from taking advantage of another state. Maybe I'm missing something, probably am... if someone wants to explain that to me I would be willing to listen.

If they are so convinced about guns coming from large gun show private purchases, which are already swarming from undercover ATFE agents (as I understand it) anyway, then go ahead and "close" the "loophole." (while providing a way for private dealers to do NICS checks quickly and for free) See how much crime it reduces. My guess would be very little. My feeling is that many criminals are armed either from stolen weapons (thus providing an emphasis on owner education and personal responsibility), or more likely, just a few crooked FFLs. It's up to the BATFE and their undercovers to bust these types of dealers. There aren't too many, so maybe I just don't understand the difficulties - but it seems like they should be able to shut down many of the crooked dealers.

I've always considered it a sign of a weak-minded person to spout numbers from some study or another, without offering any or limited explanations and rationale behind the findings.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 10:34 PM
The CCW was a Texas-only bill, while the '94 ban was national. Texas crime went down far faster than the national average, leading to the conclusion that it was the CCW.


But - i thought the play on numbers was a time-tested means of skewing results to your liking?
Are we talking averages - or are we talking concrete direct cause and effect evidence?

It sounds like we're saying "well - it happened faster in texas, so it MUST be the CCW..." without any other real evidence.

That's weak.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 10:43 PM
But its not like you can legally buy guns in an area with "lax rules." I don't see why it is so "obvious" that most of those guns come from areas with "lax laws."

AFAIK a person, for example, a NYC resident who has a record, cannot just drive to Florida, buy a few handguns, and then go back. They would not only have to pass a background check, but also they'd have to be a resident here - or get it shipped back to a FFL in their home state, assuming that its legal there, which it wouldn't be in NYC without the permits.

So what exactly do they mean? Do they mean they are buying it all from private sellers at gun shows? I really doubt that, plus many states already have their own regulations closing the "loophole."

That would prevent even a strawman from taking advantage of another state. Maybe I'm missing something, probably am... if someone wants to explain that to me I would be willing to listen.


Again - you're thinking like a normal person thinks. That's not how the criminal element would operate. The criminal element isn't going to drive 3 hours away to buy a gun at a gun show. The stickup kid from the bad side of town has no interest in going to a gun show or dealing with anybody who might be inclined to realize that they're up to no good. He wants to a buy a gun from the back of a car owned by the guy who went 3 hours to another state and loaded up. Again, supply and demand.

Same thing applies to drugs. Do you think the guy sellin 8balls and dime bags on the corner has a hookup in columbia? of course not. He's not pickin up the phone talkin to kingpins. He's talking to the guy - who's talking to a guy - who's talking to a guy who works on a dock where it comes in after another guy arranged it.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 10:52 PM
That would prevent even a strawman from taking advantage of another state. Maybe I'm missing something, probably am... if someone wants to explain that to me I would be willing to listen.

Let me give you an example. (I've used this example on here before - so some of you may recognize the story).

Some years ago - late 90s, maybe 2000-2001 at the latest, when I was living in NY - there was a big story about a gun ring that was broken up. Guy on staten island got busted with a bunch of illegal guns - sang like a bird to the police.
What they were doing, is they had a guy from PA, and a guy in GA. These guys would go around buying up guns (legally for them) on a regular basis. They would then go visit these people, and buy them illegally. Then bring them back to NY, remove the ID'ing markings - put 'em on the street at a huge markup.
Now, how does your "they'd have to ship it to an FFL" scheme solve that? Guy who made the original purchase did it 100% legally. Absolutely nothing to stop him there.

Now, what would have stopped it, and should have stopped it - is that these guys making the legal purcahses - were constantly buying from the same places. Lots of the same guns, all the time. A reasonable person would have maybe said "hmmm - this is the 3rd time this month this guy has come in and paid cash for a half dozen glock 17s at a time. That seems rather odd." But that didn't happen. Nobody said a word, no red flags were raised, no questions or concern - and all the while a steady flow of guns from out of state made it's way into the city.

I remember when I was a teenager being in the local gun store with my dad - and a guy got denied his purchase and was asked to leave the store. Why? Because he raised too many suspicions, and it was pretty clear he was buying these guns and moving them out of state (most likely to Chicago).
We'd have people come into shops there all the time with out of state (IL) plates and IDs buying $100s of dollars of ammo at a time.

But - i'm just crazy. That doesn't really happen. Right?

withdrawn34
December 23, 2008, 10:59 PM
But isn't that the classic strawman?

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 11:28 PM
But isn't that the classic strawman?

It is a classic straw sale - yea.
But when you say "That would prevent even a strawman from taking advantage of another state." No, It really doesn't.

Now - the argument could be made that - if you have someone who's committed to making straw purchases on behalf of someone else, they're going to find a way to do it no matter what. This is true - nobody denies that. I think the question becomes what can be done to help prevent that? Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns can be a bit of a deterrent. If you're under no obligation to report guns lost or stolen - then well "gee - i lost those guns in a horrible boating accident on the hudson river". No harm no foul.
A simple ATF form for sales at gun shows becomes a deterrent, as now if that straw man is buying at a gun show - it's not as untraceable as he might think.
The question is - which of these measures work, which don't, and which would be acceptable. That's something that different people are going to answer differently.
Personally - I would have no problems with an NICS lookup/ATF Form at a gun show, or some sort of reporting process for private sales. I have to go through that process when I buy from an FFL - it's not like somehow the government doesn't know I have guns.
I know for a fact however, that other people do not feel that way. That's fine - that's their choice. In the meantime however, those people should not be surprised when people harp on this subject.
There are things that can be done that I think would make life a bit more difficult for criminals to get guns - that would be of very very little consequence to legal gun owners.

I think the bigger problem is - this has become a knee-jerk reaction issue on both sides of the fence. We've both been programmed to turn this into an "all or nothing" issue. It is not.

withdrawn34
December 24, 2008, 12:47 AM
I understand what you're saying; however, I just don't think I could go to another state and buy something that might be legal there and not so in my resident state. In that sense, the strawman would be stopped from purchasing from a legal dealer.

I just don't see how someone from Chicago could go to Virginia and buy a boatload of guns and go back home. I can't think of legal loopholes that would even let him do that. The only way for him to do is to turn to illegal sources, which are already the existing problem that goes beyond our ability to legislate. Enforcement becomes key at that point.

I would agree about the gun show nonsense. Personally I don't see it as a big problem to begin with, but if its such a big deal, I'm not sure much would be lost by requiring all transactions go through a NICS check. Many states already require this and they still have gun shows. What is important is that the small time guy still has a way to do a NICS check easily, quickly, and affordably. There shouldn't be any preference given to a big guy... this facility needs to be provided to the smaller sellers at the gun show.

Sinixstar
December 24, 2008, 01:20 AM
I just don't see how someone from Chicago could go to Virginia and buy a boatload of guns and go back home.

Because you're thinking about it from the mindset of a law-abiding gun owner.

Legally speaking - you're right. You can't legally go from Chicago to VA buy some guns and bring 'em home with no problems.

We're not talking about people doing things legally. We're talking about people finding ways around the existing laws. People like to point out how "stupid" it is that "the existing laws don't work,so the answer is new laws". Yes. That's typically how it goes. If you pass a law to stop crime, and people are finding loopholes, you close the loop holes. This seems to be a perfectly fine line of thinking when we're talking about corporate CEOs finding ways to avoid taxes, but somehow when it applies to guns - it's an outrage?

Anyways - I digress.

Let me try to explain what i'm talking about in a better light.

You live in Florida.
Let's say I live in NYC. I can't get guns in NYC - but you can get 'em in Florida.
Now let's say we're both criminally minded.
I call you up and say "hey - you want to make some money? Go out, and buy 10 Glock 19s. When you have 'em, i'll come down and buy 'em off you at cost + $100/each. You'll make $1000 - just keep quiet about the whole thing."
Being criminally minded - you say "great - an easy $1000 - no problem".
At this point, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from legally buying guns in Florida. You go out and do exactly that.
A few days later - I drive down to Florida - we go out for some beer whatever, I give you the Cost+$100/each, and I go home with a handful of Glocks. Depending on the situation - even at this point there may not be anything illegal at all.

Where in that scenario would the law stop those sales, or at what point would the strawman be stopped from purchasing from a legal dealer?

That's where things like mandatory reporting of loss/stolen guns comes in to play, background checks at gunshows, etc.
It comes into play because let's say one of those glocks got traced back to you. If there's no mandatory reporting law - you simply say "yea, ya know - my truck got broken into on the way home from the range. I didn't file a police report or make an insurance claim because i didn't want my premiums to go up - i just had the window fixed." Now what?

Right now you're probably thinking "but that's so stupid, you could get caught so easily". Again - that's the law-abiding brain speaking up again. Show me a single criminal who ever EXPECTED to get caught. They all think they'll get away with it, and in the cases of people selling things that are illegal (guns, drugs, prostitution, etc) the financial benefits outweigh the perceived(non existent) risk.

As far as the private sale thing - let's say I get myself a good enough fake ID - go down and make some private FTF sales. You would be none the wiser - but a simple NICS check would show I'm not who I say I am.

When you put all this in the context of the NYT/Mayor report - some of what they're calling for makes sense. I mean - how do you explain 12 year old guns originally bought in GA suddenly showing up in NYC? There had to be some exchanging of goods/money somewhere along the line. Guns don't just get up and travel halfway up the eastern seaboard by themselves.
But, no mandatory reporting of theft/loss, no reporting/checks for private FTF sales, and all of the sudden that's the situation we have.

What is important is that the small time guy still has a way to do a NICS check easily, quickly, and affordably. There shouldn't be any preference given to a big guy... this facility needs to be provided to the smaller sellers at the gun show.
Provided there's internet access - or the little guy has a data-enabled cellphone he can get internet access on, there's no reason why that can't happen. eChecks should be more common place these days. This is one place where technology should be allowed to shine - as it really can/will reduce the bar of entry for the little guys. Really, it could make life a whole heck of a lot easier on all of us. Instead of having to wait while somebody calls in to a call center - you type it up on the computer, hit send, and get a response. Done.

Situation like that - the little guy would be able to process checks as fast as his fingers could type.

General Geoff
December 24, 2008, 03:25 AM
But, no mandatory reporting of theft/loss, no reporting/checks for private FTF sales, and all of the sudden that's the situation we have.


What's stopping the straw purchasers from just, you know, reporting their guns stolen, then?

subknave
December 24, 2008, 09:16 AM
"That's where things like mandatory reporting of loss/stolen guns comes in to play, background checks at gunshows, etc.
It comes into play because let's say one of those glocks got traced back to you. If there's no mandatory reporting law - you simply say "yea, ya know - my truck got broken into on the way home from the range. I didn't file a police report or make an insurance claim because i didn't want my premiums to go up - i just had the window fixed." Now what?"

First he wouldn't report it anyway and second, based on gun trace data, your scenario is not what happens most of the time. Most of the guns traced are several years old so the idea of massive amounts of guns being funneled to states like New York is not what happens.


"Right now you're probably thinking "but that's so stupid, you could get caught so easily". Again - that's the law-abiding brain speaking up again. Show me a single criminal who ever EXPECTED to get caught. They all think they'll get away with it, and in the cases of people selling things that are illegal (guns, drugs, prostitution, etc) the financial benefits outweigh the perceived(non existent) risk."


Okay so why would you expect that a law requiring they report lost or stolen guns have any impact since, as you say, the criminal wouldn't follow it anyway and would not think he would get caught.

"As far as the private sale thing - let's say I get myself a good enough fake ID - go down and make some private FTF sales. You would be none the wiser - but a simple NICS check would show I'm not who I say I am."

How would it do that?? If you don't put a SSN on the 4473 and there is no criminal record for the person on the fake ID then you would come back clean and the transaction approved. Unless a SSN was supplied and didn't match the name or you took fingerprints you wouldn't know they were not the person on the ID.

"When you put all this in the context of the NYT/Mayor report - some of what they're calling for makes sense. I mean - how do you explain 12 year old guns originally bought in GA suddenly showing up in NYC? There had to be some exchanging of goods/money somewhere along the line. Guns don't just get up and travel halfway up the eastern seaboard by themselves.
But, no mandatory reporting of theft/loss, no reporting/checks for private FTF sales, and all of the sudden that's the situation we have."

So I still don't see how mandatory reporting would stop criminals from buying illegal guns or people so inclined to sell guns without doing background checks. If a gun is stolen and you report it, its still stolen and likely to be sold perhaps two or three times before being found to have been used in a crime and for the gun to be recovered the crook would have to be caught. Criminals don't think they will be caught because 9 times out of ten they won't. Lets say a gun is bought from a straw purchaser and recovered in a crime in New York. So after several years (the typical time between purchase and crime) the original purchaser claims it was stolen. Now he is slapped with a fine for not reporting the theft. How did that prevent the gun from being used in a crime? While guns don't just move themselves people often do and usually take their possessions (including guns) with them.

Also how many of these "crimes" are mere possession of a handgun? According to the trace data about half of the traces in New York were for possession. How many of those were people that had moved to New York and didn't get rid of their guns but committed no other crime than having a gun. Bottom line is we need to concentrate on catching criminals violating the laws we have. Making new laws only makes more criminals.

Titan6
December 24, 2008, 10:02 AM
LOL- Maybe it is just me but that even a cursory glance shows that report is full of big enough holes to float an aircraft carrier through.

Easy Target:
Guns are used to kill people because they are more available in some states than other. Stopping people from getting guns DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM KILLING EACH OTHER.

They use the "murder rate for guns". An examination of the actual murder rate is quite revealing. For example IL is listed as a top ten "lowest export rate" and therefore falls into the category of having a low "gun murder rate". Their actual murder rate is of course nearly DOUBLE the national average (6.0 on average). People kill each other with other things because they can not get guns as easily as the free states.

The whole report is quite flawed in many respects, but I have some last minute Christmas Shopping to do so feel free to poke it some more.

Izaak Walton
December 24, 2008, 11:10 AM
The NYC/VA comparison is a good example of how laws and or new laws don’t work.
Bloomberg can’t control bad guys in his city… so… he sends people to other states (illegally) to punish them.
If a fox is killing your chickens go after the neighbors hogs.

Titan6
December 24, 2008, 11:41 AM
More Easy Targets:

- They remove IL from their list of favored vassal states which would skew the averages badly away from what they are trying to "prove" and count HI (an island) and DC (not even a state)

The whole report is really just garbage.

ServiceSoon
December 24, 2008, 12:55 PM
Taking the guns away doesn't solve the crime problem.

What's stopping the straw purchasers from just, you know, reporting their guns stolen, then?
The gov would make that illegal. Oh, wait.

Deltaboy
December 24, 2008, 01:01 PM
The Data is twisted to make Bloomburg look good.

ServiceSoon
December 24, 2008, 01:07 PM
Something else to consider is that correlation doesn't equal causation.

The_Shootist
December 24, 2008, 03:19 PM
You should read the comments under the Chicago piece reporting the city's 500th murder. Supporters of the 2A are out in force.

TCB in TN
December 24, 2008, 03:25 PM
I really couldn't care less about WHERE the guns are coming from. If NY and other similar states would hang onto their own criminals then their own crime rates would drop. Those "pansy" gun laws don't seem to be causing much trouble in the states that have them. Looks to be more of a problem with their states than our gun laws!

Grump
December 24, 2008, 03:45 PM
Quote:
The CCW was a Texas-only bill, while the '94 ban was national. Texas crime went down far faster than the national average, leading to the conclusion that it was the CCW.
But - i thought the play on numbers was a time-tested means of skewing results to your liking?
Are we talking averages - or are we talking concrete direct cause and effect evidence?

It sounds like we're saying "well - it happened faster in texas, so it MUST be the CCW..." without any other real evidence.

That's weak.

Not THAT weak. It's called isolating for the other variables. Most "studies" with conclusions favoring more restrictive gun laws either fail to isolate for the other variable, or selectively "define" the problem or other factors to obfuscate the whole picture.

10 or 12 years from last known retail sale to the crime? Without knowing the details for at least 80% of these so-called "crime guns", much of the discussion is meaningless. For example, how many of these were purchased and owned legally for years before the owners moved into the dictator-states and then the guns became "illegal" solely because of what could be called a "status offense"? One theft that's unreported BECAUSE of the restrictive laws ("I can't admit to the Fuzz that I didn't bother to register my Glock." or one private party sale by the otherwise legal owner is all it takes to put that particular firearm into the black market.

"Iron pipeline" my arse. The term implies a systematic and organized and intentionally lawbreaking scheme. The gun-import rings are rare. The true problem is a scofflaw mentality and U.S. traditions of violence that do not stop at simply establishing dominance over the opponent.

Unfortunately, it takes only a very small proportion of the population without appropriate violence ethics to produce even the insanely high murder rates of 80 per 100,000 per year. I love the statistical comparisons that remove ALL "gun murders" in places like D.C. or Detroit, and still result in some states having far more non-gun killings per capita than occur for ALL murders (including guns) in other "lax gun law" states.

MT GUNNY
December 24, 2008, 04:46 PM
LOL, What a joke!!!!

yokel
December 24, 2008, 05:23 PM
Naturally, their true aim will always be to chip away at Second Amendment rights and reduce the number of guns and ammunition at large by imposing more and more unnecessary cost, indignity and inconvenience on legitimate users of arms.

Over time, the number of "legally" held guns and ammo will decline.

Master Blaster
December 24, 2008, 05:56 PM
Where are the criminals who commit all these murders from? They are what matter not the guns. If there were NO Guns they would resort to knives, if there were no Knives then it would be clubs, no clubs it would be bare hands and feet.

Lets see a study on the criminals who use the guns to commit murder.
How many times have they been arrested, where did they live/ grow up?

Are they out on Bail, Probation or PAROLE? How long was their sentence for the last crime they commited? How fast did they get PAROLED ?

How many other violent offenses have they been previously arrested for?

Thats what you need to know if you want to decrease crime and murder, and shootings.

Because its the same criminals over and over and over, what can we do about that????

Drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine have been illegal for 90 years now and yet they are still readily and easily availible in every city in America, are the drug lords in big cities like New York exporting them and their death and crime to my little town???? Do they grow opium poppies and coca bushes in NYC? They must be importred as well,even though they are completely illegal in every other state.
Why would the black market for firearmes be any different that the black market for Drugs??

If Mayor Bloomberg were honest he would admit, that its repeat habitual violent offenders who are out on PAROLE, PROBATION, BAIL, OR ARE SIMPLY WANTED AND NOT YET APPREHENDED, that are the real problem and the cause of most all crime.

If guns were made illegal tomorrow they would be for sale on every street corner JUST like Drugs.

withdrawn34
December 24, 2008, 07:05 PM
I did some more reading and as it turns out, stolen guns really account for only about 10-15% of guns in the hands of criminals.

Where do most illegal guns come from? Shady FFLs. Laws of any state aren't going to stop a shady gun dealer from trying to make some extra, illegitimate money on the side. I think we need to start bringing the hammer down harder on getting undercovers into gun trafficking schemes to find the sources of these weapons and shut them down. Of course, this also goes for strawmen, even strawmen who do their purchases in an obvious manner, but no dealer raises a red flag.

There's no point in trying to do waste of time legislation that criminals only laugh at and wastes law enforcement's time and resources that could be used at capturing real criminals. Of course, wussy and ignorant politicians are only too happy to help the criminal and waste the resources of our criminal justice system on people who aren't even criminals... and we wonder why we can't keep dangerous in prison.

shooter429
December 24, 2008, 07:43 PM
Laws tough or lenient make no difference to gang members. They steal them and buy from illegal sources who are not going into another state, filling out paperwork and buying guns legally.

Criminals will always get guns, no matter how tough the laws are. Nothing can stop them. All tougher laws do is stop law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves.

Gun control does not lower violent crime rates. Gun controls increase the vulnerability of the general populace, while increasing violent crime. What stops violent crime is lenient gun laws that allow people to buy, carry and defend themselves.

Sorry, but the whole concept, while it might seem logical on the surface, really is nothing but a "feel good measure that the ignorant masses might buy, but will only increase violence in reality.

Time for people to start thinking instead of parroting what Sarah Brady et. al. espouse with the intent of making money at the expense of the good citizens of the country. Such evil. So frustrating. In essence, they are selling deadly policy to people who are to stupid to know better and kill the good guys as a natural consequence.

The way to fix the problem is to abolish gun control laws across the nation. There would be no money to be made by the BG/politicians, and violent crime would be greatly reduced.

Simple.

Shooter429

ConstitutionCowboy
December 24, 2008, 09:03 PM
Food for thought: ... If the states with "lax" gun laws are so bad for the states with "tough" gun laws, why is gun involved crime in those so-called lax states so much lower than it is in those tough law states?

Dine on the answer. The states with less limitations on firearms ownership and carrying have a better armed populace able to resist criminal acts. Criminals will get their desired arms no matter what the law is in any particular state.

I'm still wondering how many guns used by criminals originate in the tough gun laws states as opposed to from out of state.

All this claptrap from Bloomberg and company is nothing less than a diversion from the truth. They're not that dumb. They are that devious.

Woody

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
December 24, 2008, 09:04 PM
Well, here's the deal:

States requiring the same background checks at gun shows as those required for store purchases show an export rate for guns used in crimes that’s nearly half the national average.

There are exactly ZERO states that require a different background (NICS) check at gun shows, as compared to elsewhere for a standard dealer purchase, and so it is a literal impossibility that a differential statistic could have been obtained. Therefore, that statement is an outright blatent LIE, and thus nothing else in the story can be believed. As for whether the story is accurately reflecting what the study allegedly shows, I don't know. The study may actually show something. But the story itself has ZERO credibility.

Master Blaster
December 25, 2008, 12:20 PM
Where do most illegal guns come from? Shady FFLs. Laws of any state aren't going to stop a shady gun dealer from trying to make some extra, illegitimate money on the side. I think we need to start bringing the hammer down harder on getting undercovers into gun trafficking schemes to find the sources of these weapons and shut them down. Of course, this also goes for strawmen, even strawmen who do their purchases in an obvious manner, but no dealer raises a red flag

An interesting study I would like to see is the total number of guns sold and posessed versus the number confiscated by state. Its a very small percentage, like the number of say cars used to commit a crime or a murder. The higher a dealers volume and the more years they have been in business the more guns they have sold that will turn up in a trace. The John Jovino gunstore in NYC is the number one source of crime guns by trace data in NYC. They have been in business for 90 years, they do not sell to criminals and infact will not even let a person without a NYC pistol permit in the store to touch a gun.

The real problem is the fact that most crimes are committed by a small number of repeat offenders, who are arrested and released many times before they commit a murder. Usually these offenders have a long history of violent offenses.

Most guns in the hands of criminals are legally obtained from an FFL with a background check. They are bought most frequently by family members or girlfriends, or even folks who charge to buy a gun. A NYC criminal may very well go down to South Carolina and visit a family member who will buy a gun for him for a fee. This is not the gun dealer's fault.
Multiple purchases are reported to the ATF, so most straw buyers only buy one gun at a time but may go to several different dealers. Of course folks who are buying firearms as part of their hobby for legal purposes do the same thing.
The problem is telling them apart.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 25, 2008, 12:40 PM
I've bought 3 guns in the last six weeks. I'll bet I'm on their stink list.

Woody

JImbothefiveth
December 25, 2008, 12:57 PM
Why again are they opposed to just keeping these criminals locked away?

Art Eatman
December 25, 2008, 01:34 PM
From 1993 to 2003, per BATFE website chart, firearms sales in the U.S. averaged right at five million per year. These add to the 1968 estimate of 200 to 240 million firearms in private ownership in the U.S. It has been reported that through October, some 7.8 million NICS enquiries were made. Then we have the added "feeding frenzy" since the election. So, I would "guesstimate" that private ownership, now, is somewhere near 400 million.

Paul34, BATF testimony during the runup to the AW Ban stated that some 80% to 85% of guns used in crimes were "illegally acquired". From police data through some decades, burglaries of homes and cars have been a major source of crime guns.

Of crime guns, many were legally acquired by a legal buyer--who later (months or years) used the gun in some sort of crime. (Family violence comes quickly to mind.)

Leaving the politics out of it, reports like this from NYC are developed to support a preconceived notion about firearms acquisition and usage--in order to justify laws which attempt to deal with this preconceived notion. As has been noted in the results of objective studies, these laws don't accomplish any reduction in violent crime.

JImbothefiveth
December 25, 2008, 06:14 PM
So, I would "guesstimate" that private ownership, now, is somewhere near 400 million.
I'd also say that car ownership is probably not quite that high, yet more people are killed by cars each year than guns.

We need cars to have a 3-day waiting period! :neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "Finally We Know the "Truth": NYT" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!