Boston.com published an article about the disappointing performance of President Obama with regards gun control.
Gun tracing records, collected and maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), tend to implicate certain licensed firearms dealers as common source points in supply chains for trafficking in illegal guns. Several analyses of ATF data, including my own, have shown that 1% of licensed gun dealers are linked to a majority of firearms recovered from criminal enterprises.
Despite the utility of this type of information, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) who just so happens to be a recipient of significant NRA support, quietly slipped into a 2003 appropriations bill an amendment that suddenly and significantly limited access to these data by both law enforcement and other concerned groups. No longer was it possible to identify so-called "rogue dealers," whose frequent connection to guns subsequently used in crimes would potentially expose shoddy practices. Apparently, to Rep. Tiahrt and his gun-friendly friends, such analyses threatened the sanctity of the Second Amendment, if not our entire system of free enterprise.
There's certainly nothing new there, in fact he even mentions the Brady Campaign's "F" rating for Obama's first year in office. What is new is that nifty little graph.
The gun rights crowd like to claim that in spite of increased gun ownership there's no increase in crime. At best, that's an ambiguous and misleading statement, but we have plenty of that on both sides of the argument. I don't pay much attention. Time will tell, I always say.
This graph however, which shows the percentage of murders committed with a gun is quite damning to the pro gun argument. It shows exactly what you'd expect with decreased gun laws and increased gun ownership.
What's your opinion. Please leave a comment.
Here we go again, Tiahrt stops cops from tracing guns. Of course that is outright B.S. Every time you run an "iron pipeline" story, the article mentions tracing the guns back to East Podunk, America and how evil it is that they can own guns without government permission. How do these guns get traced if Tiahrt blocks it?
ReplyDeleteAs to your graph, it just proves to me that America is more dangerous than it used to be and we should be carrying firearms more than ever.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI know I've personally explained Tiahrt to MikeB before.
ReplyDeleteThen again he's not interested in the truth. He has an agenda to push damnit, and he'll lie to do it.
I actually thought the graph was pretty cool to point out that although overall homicides are down, the percentage of ones committed with a gun is rising.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't that perfectly support the "blood-in-the-streets" gun control theory?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMissing from the article, as it always notably is:
ReplyDeleteWhere is the example of data prohibited to outsiders which was used successfully to actually reduce gun crimes BEFORE Tiahrt resricted that data?
PS: Also omitted from the article (as is also usual) -- Trace data remains unrestricted to local LE agencies where the gun crime was committed, and to BATF, the agency actually responsible for monitoring dealer misconduct.
C'mon.
ReplyDeleteIf gun ownership was up and homicides were up, NOTHING would stop antigunowner advocates from claiming direct causality. But since the facts are the opposite, is it not INEVITABLE that antigunowner advocates would come up with some statistic that tries to say that the obvious is somehow not what it seems?
Yes, if things went the other way it might be gunowners trying to make excuses. But the reality is that the facts are with the gunowners now.
MikeB: “What is new is that nifty little graph.”
ReplyDeleteMore like “shifty” little graph. One of the things I look at in chart like this is the awkward wording. Specifically the chart is plotting “felony-related homicides”. What does that mean? They want us to think “murder”, but why not say “murder”? As worded (especially using the word “related”), this could very well mean someone being killed while a felony is being committed- which means justifiable DGUs and police homicides of a perp. Of course justifiable DGUs would be expected to increase as more CCW permits get issued. It would be easy enough to verify if these types of homicides are included in the data if the article sited a source. But this article suspiciously did not. I find that odd, because isn’t it expected of a reputable journalist to site sources?
I also point you to the title of your post, MikeB. Using this chart as your basis, you went with the title “Gun Murders on the Increase” which implies total murders. Why not title it “Percentage of Guns as the Murder weapon on the increase” when you know quite well that this is what the graph is showing (and that is substituting “murder” for “felony-related homicide” which more the data collectors slight of hand than your own). Is the idea that someone casually skimming a title and not reading the context would take away the belief that murders are on the rise (which is deceitful), or just your own wishful interpretation?
-TS
MikeB: “Doesn't that perfectly support the "blood-in-the-streets" gun control theory?”
ReplyDeleteNo, you’d have to have more blood for that.
-TS
TS, I realize this may be hard to believe, but I didn't even notice that about the title.
ReplyDeleteYour idea that "felony related" may include DGUs, if true, would make this one of the lowest attempts at deception I've ever seen. I didn't think about that either. But, you've got a good point, why didn't they just talk about murders?
Thanks MikeB, that’s what I like about you (you weren’t being sarcastic, right?).
ReplyDeleteNo, TS, I was being straight up with that last comment. I even thought about amending the title, but couldn't come up with a concise version.
ReplyDelete