Finally We Know the "Truth": NYT

One piece of data that's missing from the BATFE report (at least I didn't see it) is "12 years" from what point?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

But isn't that the classic strawman?

But isn't that the classic strawman?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

I just don't see how someone from Chicago could go to Virginia and buy a boatload of guns and go back home.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

The gov would make that illegal. Oh, wait.

The Data is twisted to make Bloomburg look good.

Something else to consider is that correlation doesn't equal causation.

Grin

You should read the comments under the Chicago piece reporting the city's 500th murder. Supporters of the 2A are out in force.