Nearly half of the guns that crossed state lines and were used in crimes in 2009 were sold in just 10 states, according to a report being released Monday by a mayors' group.Before even reading the list I knew they'd be the same states we'd talked about before.
What's your opinion? Here's the article's closing sentence.
For example, in states that do not require background checks for handgun sales at gun shows, the crime-gun export rate was two-and-a-half times as much as the rate in states that do require such checks.
Please leave a comment.
Hmm . . . #1 Brady-ranked California is a top 10 "crime gun" source state. I'm not sure the Brady Campaign will thank you for bringing attention to this--but I do, if that makes you feel any better.
ReplyDeleteI also can't help but notice that a lot of BATFE-supplied gun trace data was used in compiling these figures. That sounds a lot like the kind of data that the Tiahrt Amendment has supposedly made unavailable.
I see Zorro still wishes to compare apples and oranges.
ReplyDeleteThe BC ranks states on legislation aimd at reducing gun violence. Hence, it is very possible for a state to be ranked highly by BC yet have problems with gun violence.
I am sceptical about any news story that uses a criminal organization such as MAIG as its sole source.
ReplyDeleteHere's a stat for you: the rate of persons convicted of felonies per 100,000 that are members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns is 2.5 times greater than that of the general population.
"The BC ranks states on legislation aimd at reducing gun violence. Hence, it is very possible for a state to be ranked highly by BC yet have problems with gun violence."
Absolutely Jade, I agree. Because such legislation is aimed at control of the law abiding rather than doing anything about crime.
I see FWM is using the Thirdpower statistical service which cannot be backed up.
ReplyDeleteBecause such legislation is aimed at control of the law abiding rather than doing anything about crime.
Actually, no. As we've seen, your preferred solutions as evidenced in states like LA, TN, SC and elsewhere have led to more crime and violence.
In TN, backgrounds checks are required to purchase a handgun at a gun show. No check is required for individual-to-individual transfers, and rightly so, but such transactions are forbidden at shows.
ReplyDeleteJadefool:
ReplyDeleteI see Zorro still wishes to compare apples and oranges.
The BC ranks states on legislation aimd at reducing gun violence. Hence, it is very possible for a state to be ranked highly by BC yet have problems with gun violence.
Thank you, Jadefool, for acknowledging the weakness in correlation between highly restrictive gun laws and low violent crime rates.
We on the pro-rights side of the gun debate generally point out that "correlation does not equal causation," and try to be patient while waiting for demonstration of some causal relationship between strict gun laws and low violent crime rates (and/or between "lax" gun laws and high violent crime rates). It is both instructive and fun, though, to point out that even the mere correlation has some pretty gaping holes, with much of California being a violent crime ridden sewer--with strict gun laws, and states like Vermont and the Dakotas having fairly "lax" gun laws, and quite manageable rates of violent crime.
Of course, people like me would not back down an inch even if you could provide indisputable proof of a very strong causal relationship, because we don't believe fundamental human rights can legitimately be held hostage to the behavior of others, but that's a discussion for another day.
I'm curious as to who said that armed self-defence is a fundamental humn right? Oleg Volk?
ReplyDeleteIf it's Oleg, does he support the PLO and other Palestinian Nationalist Organisations (this includes Hamas)???
Other than US sources, this right does not exist. In fact, per Dave Kopel:
Does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a
human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said “no”—that international law recognizes no human right of self-defense. To the contrary, the Human Rights Council declares that very severe gun control—more restrictive than even the laws of New York City--is a human right.
Amusingly, Kopel intends on arguing that this is a fundamental human right, when it is actually a form of US cultural aggression.
Laci
If self-defense (armed or not) is not a fundamental human right, then acquiescence to aggression can be made obligatory. Sheer evil.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I'm aware of Mr. Kopel's superb work in exposing the U.N.'s denial that self-defense is a human right. This, I submit, is a far greater indictment of the U.N., than of the fundamental human right of self-defense.
Jade is complaining about people not being able to back their claims up?
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, the logic that leads to self-defense being a fundamental human right also says agression is.
ReplyDeleteBoth are based on the entirely bogus notion of natural law.
Oh, no. Jade is going to entertain us once more on his take on natural law. Get your popcorn, this is going to be quite the show.
ReplyDeleteJadefool:
ReplyDeleteActually, the logic that leads to self-defense being a fundamental human right also says agression [sic] is.
Yeah--because self-defense and "agression" are indistinguishable.
I see Jadefool regards himself wiser not only than John Locke, but more so than the Dalai Lama, as well:
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
Granted, he followed it up with the suggestion that the defensive shooter should try to avoid inflicting a fatal wound, but this indicates an imperfect understanding of the dynamics of a gunfight, rather than of the inherent right to self-defense.
Yeah--because self-defense and "agression" are indistinguishable.
ReplyDeleteDidn't say that, Z. What I sagely noted was: the logic that leads to self-defense being a fundamental human right also says agression is.
WRT the Dalai Lama, he is a religious figure and his pronouncements are religious in nature. IOW, they require a faith or belief--not in logic--but in some kind of spiritualism.
WRT John Locke, his logic is rather poor. For example, Locke famously writes: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it" In the next breath, Locke claims this law of nature ensures "no one ought to harm another".
The state of nature basically says that big fish eat little fish, stronger animals prey on weaker animals, etc. How Locke says the state of nature demands that no one hurt another is simply sloppy thinking.
Tennessee Budd said, "No check is required for individual-to-individual transfers, and rightly so, but such transactions are forbidden at shows."
ReplyDeleteDo you think there's a difference? Aren't private sales at gun shows essentially the same as selling privately out of the want ads or on the internet? Can't two guys meet at a gun show and agree to go around the corner to the 7-11 to do the deal?
You pro-gun extremists must have been laughing good and long at the legislators who specified "at gun shows" instead of making it apply to all private sales.
Enjoy it while you can. It won't last.
I thought the UN statement was not to deny the right of self defense but just to say guns are not necessarily a part of it.
ReplyDeleteYou pro-gun extremists must have been laughing good and long at the legislators who specified "at gun shows" instead of making it apply to all private sales.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you blaming the pro-gun folks? It is the anti-gun folks such as yourself that have coined the term "gun show loophole" in order to disguise your want to require all transfers to go through a back ground check. It is you that needs to be more honest with your intentions.
RuffRidr:
ReplyDeleteWhy are you blaming the pro-gun folks? It is the anti-gun folks such as yourself that have coined the term "gun show loophole" in order to disguise your want to require all transfers to go through a back ground check. It is you that needs to be more honest with your intentions.
Can I get an "Amen!"?
Superbly stated, RuffRidr.
RuffRidr, I don't see it as a question of honesty on the part of the gun control folks who specified "gun show." It may have been a strategic choice with incrementalism as the master plan, which I've often heard your side point out.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you call that dishonest when the pro-gun folks do the exact same thing?
By the way, I recently expressed skepticism about the relevance of per capita "'crime gun' export rates, but since both Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader and the gang headed by "Furious Mike" Bloomberg, Dirty Little Dick Daley, Torturin' Tom Menino, seem to want to make an issue of it, perhaps we should consider another piece of information. The ten states listed as supplying 49% of the "crime guns" also happen to have a total population (by 2009 numbers) of more than 144,540,000 people, or over 47% of the national population (also by 2009 numbers).
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the per capita "'crime gun' export rate" of these states is about on a par with the national average.
In still other words (these words shamelessly pilfered from the incomparable Neal Stephenson), this whole "report" is little more than "stupid nonsense, rot, gibberish, and criminally fraudulent nincompoopery."