Interesting that long guns make up a much larger percentage than we've heard from the fanatics. That's why comprehensive gun control would require licensing and registration of ALL guns.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mike,
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that recovered firearms isn't the same as guns used in crimes. For example, if a burglar breaks into some residences and steals some firearms and is arrested, the guns the police recover and trace go into the mix.
One thing this report does is show that the majority of guns recovered originate in the same state, which effects the validity of the common assertion that guns used in crime commonly come from states with lax gun laws.
Mikeb, these are firearms that were recovered and traced. Handguns are easier to "lose" than long guns. Even if we go with these data, handguns are three times the long guns of all types. Besides, what we were talking about a while ago were the so-called assault weapons, and this table is useless for determining how many of those were recovered, given the broad category of "rifles" and the way the term, machineguns, gets misused.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, we will oppose any licensing or registration of any guns.
Ohh, it's the old "guns traced" trick like they used about the gun flow into Mexico. I get it.
DeleteReality is only a trick to the incompetent.
DeleteYou know, when someone points out a weakness in your statistics and you respond like that, Mike, it just makes you look like an idiot.
DeleteIt is also interesting to note that autoloading pistols and revolvers were categorised separately, in what appears to be an attempt to understate the propensity of handguns to be utilised as an instrument of crime, as opposed to longarms.
DeleteNice catch, Ian--I'd missed that completely.
DeleteYeah, great catch! What about all the derringer crimes. That really detracted from the handgun total.
DeleteUm, Mikeb, do you think you are weakening Ian's argument when you make an observation that strengthens it (albeit slightly)?
DeletePuzzling.
"albeit slightly" that was the point.
Delete"albeit slightly" that was the point.
DeleteIf you call that a "point," that must be another of the many words you define differently from the vast majority of English speakers.
Let me see if I'm following you here. You make an observation that supports Ian's point (slightly or not), and that's somehow counts against the point he did make himself?
You make less sense every day.
Notice how I said that the number of handguns is three times the number of long guns?
DeleteThat's trace data, Mike. Not all crime guns are traced, not all traced guns are crime guns, nor is it a random sample.
ReplyDeleteSo, like the Mexican crime guns that were traced, there was a big conspiracy here to up the number of long guns. Is that it?
DeleteWhat the hell are you talking about, Mikeb? I know of literally no one but you who is pretending that there is some link between gun traces and gun homicides. You do realize, don't you, that there are tens of thousands of guns in the U.S. for every annual shooting death?
DeleteSeriously, are you trying to make us think you are incapable of reason, Mike?
DeleteNobody said that there was a conspiracy in selecting certain guns to inflate figures--we just pointed out that the Mexicans only asked us to trace guns they were reasonably sure came from the US--hence the huge number of positive traces.
Hell, one of your pro gun control infographics a while back showed that Russia and a couple other countries were major suppliers of guns to Mexico. Even the ATF said that while 90% of traced guns came from the US only about 13% of the TOTAL crime guns came from here.
We never said that the stat was monkeyed with, just that the use of it was monkeyed with.
Just like here: we're not saying that there weren't more long guns traced here than long guns mentioned in the FBI numbers. Rather, we're pointing out that the FBI goes off of what type of gun was used, whether recovered and traced, or chucked in a river, while this only covers the recoveries and any other guns that get traced, possibly for reasons other than being used in a crime.
It's not so hard to understand. Do you get it now, or are you going to pretend to be dense and tell me that I'm just promoting a conspiracy theory in more fancy terms?
Interesting that long guns make up a much larger percentage than we've heard from the [decent people].
ReplyDeleteWrong again (or should I have said "wrong still?). We (absolutely correctly) point out that long guns are used in homicides at a rate on a par with homicidal use of baseball bats, fist and feet, etc. The firearms listed here are those that were traced--a vastly different proposition (one might have hoped that that wouldn't need to be explained to you, Mikeb).
The BATFE even openly admits this:
Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.
You'll have to try much harder than that, Mikeb.
That's why comprehensive gun control would require licensing and registration of ALL guns.
And if decent people have to kill tens of thousands to prevent "comprehensive gun control," we will.
So why all the whining about the Tiahrt amendment?
ReplyDeleteAll guns should be licensed, insured, and registered. If we can do it for cars, we can do it for guns.
ReplyDeleteOnly when your comments are licensed, insured, and registered.
DeleteOnly when you give a shit about life, should you be listened to. That will be never
DeleteI care about life. I just have a more realistic perspective of it.
DeleteSod off, O Anonymous concern troll.
DeleteMikeB: "Interesting that long guns make up a much larger percentage than we've heard from the fanatics."
ReplyDeleteYou mean the fanatics at the FBI who published that data?
A larger percentage of what, Mike? The stat your thinking of quoted by "fanatics" is percentage of gun homicides that used rifles, as published by the FBI. And you refute that because the percentage of gun traces in New York State isn't the same percentage...
Delete