The 10 states with the highest crime gun export rates in 2009 were Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, and Georgia.What's your opinion? Isn't this damning evidence that lax gun laws are bad for the country? Isn't this proof that gun control works?
Please leave a comemnt.
As I've said before,
ReplyDeleteTraced Guns ≠ "Crime Guns"
"Isn't this proof that gun control works?"
ReplyDeleteQuite the contrary. It shows that no matter what laws you pass to subjugate the law abiding, criminals will still find the means to get guns. Criminals don't seem to care about the law, that is why they are called criminals.
Also remember MikeB admits to criminally owning guns.
ReplyDeleteBy that admission he admits that gun control laws don't work.
Criminals get guns because of the NRA. Since dupes and the socially arrested (redundancy?) support the NRA--folks like Weerd and the Fat Male Caucasian are aiding criminals.
ReplyDeleteGlad there was no gun crime before 1871. Damned evil NRA and their gun passing thuggery.
ReplyDeleteSo the Little Bitch's loving master is now an NRA member because he illegally owned guns?
ReplyDeleteWow.
Weerd: It's entirely possible I'm still counted as an NRA member having taken a number of certification courses from them.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the NRA als maintains folks who have left or died on their membership rolls.
By the way, even if not for the dubiousness of the relationship between traced guns and "crime guns," what is the relevance of the per capita "crime gun export rate"? Do you really expect us to believe that you'd give West Virginia a pass on its 852 "crime guns," if the population were quadruple what it is, thus quartering the per capita rate to under the national average?
ReplyDeleteThe per capita data has a built-in bias against low population density, rural states--which, incidentally, tend to have less restrictive gun laws than states full of urban cesspits. Don't suppose that could have been the motivation behind inclusion of that data in MAIG's "report," do ya'?
Nah . . .
It's entirely possible I'm still counted as an NRA member having taken a number of certification courses from them.
ReplyDeleteSure you have. Like everything else you say, this is dubious.
I'm not talking about you little bitch, I'm talking about your owner.
ReplyDeleteJadefool:
ReplyDeleteOf course, the NRA als maintains folks who have left or died on their membership rolls.
And your evidence? Good luck, given the fact that the NRA doesn't share its membership list . . . unlike the Brady Campaign, which has placed theirs on the market (can't imagine who would think such a paltry list worth the money).
Actually, Z, the NRA has admitted it isn't diligent about keeping its membership current. It has acknowledge that some part of its membership is deceased and/or left the NRA.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the NRA sells their membership list as well. It's rather funny--when Hadley created a membership for me, about 10 days later I started receiving junk mail from folks wanting to sell me gold, survival rations, seminars for paying no taxes and the like.
And as always, Jadefool, I have every confidence that you'll be able to substantiate your claims, as your history so clearly illustrates.
ReplyDeleteThat's sarcasm, if you lack the wit to detect it.
Roy, what do you mean "if" he lacks the wit?
ReplyDeleteAnon . . . er, "Mike W.":
ReplyDeleteRoy, what do you mean "if" he lacks the wit?
Good point, but you know me--polite to a fault.
Zorro said it before, but I just had a quick glance at what it means, "Traced guns do not equal crime guns.". Half of the guns traced, it said, were for possession violations.
ReplyDeleteDo they not count? Are they not crimes too?
Maybe this is your version of sleight of hand, eh?
OK--let's, for the sake of argument, call a possession offense (a technicality, in other words) a "crime," and the wrongly possessed gun a "crime gun." You did see the immediately preceding sentence, "Violent crimes account for only one-seventh of BATF traces," perhaps? Is violence committed with guns not the issue here?
ReplyDeleteConsider also the fact that more and more, police subject every gun encountered to BATFE tracing, even when there is no crime. For example:
“Officer, I am carrying a firearm in compliance with North Carolina law.” So began my exchange during a traffic stop. (Sorry, I have a lead foot.) He replied, “May I have it, sir?” Since this was before I knew enough to say “no,” I complied. The officer then took my gun to his car, traced it and, finding nothing amiss, returned it to me. MAIG’s report would have you believe my gun is a “crime gun” because it would be included in the gun trace reports on which its study is based.
Care to wager whether or not the guns belonging to the Madison Five (or at least to the two who were most egregiously violated) were traced, despite the only "crime" having been civil rights advocacy (well, the cops may have committed a crime, but it will probably be treated as a civil, rather than criminal, matter)?
That's not the only example, "Roy." Don't forget the lady who brought in her deceased husband's hunting rifle because she didn't want it around anymore. It was included as a traced gun, despite there being absolutely no connection to any crime whatsoever!
ReplyDeleteHadn't been aware of that example, Ano . . . er, Mike W., but I'm hardly surprised.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, how about all the gun "buy backs"? In many (if not all) of them, the guns are checked for links to any crimes--how do you suppose that's done?
I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.
Maybe that's why so many MAIG mayors are so supportive of these "buy backs."
Wow, there are so many innocuous situations which result in gun traces. Wouldn't "possession offenses" also include felons who are found in possession of a gun? Aren't you guys spinning this thing a bit?
ReplyDeleteJadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteWouldn't "possession offenses" also include felons who are found in possession of a gun?
Undoubtedly. And I'll spare you the sermon about what I think of "prohibited persons" lists--that dead horse is one we can probably safely consider adequately flogged, for the moment.
The point is that there are a great many occasions in which guns completely unconnected to any violations of any laws, are traced. To think of traced guns as being synonymous with "crime guns" is to get a badly distorted picture--just the kind of picture that "Furious Mike" Bloomberg, Dirty Little Dick Daley, Torturin' Tom Menino, and the rest of their gang would like to paint for the public.
Want some more--from, say, the BATFE itself? How 'bout this disclaimer, on every trace data report they furnish (such as this one--my emphasis added):
ReplyDelete"Not all firearms used in crimes are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime. Firearms selected for tracing aren't chosen for purposes of determining which types, makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected don't constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. . . .[S]ources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.