Forbes op-ed
According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related
homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253
during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal
firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority
of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years
of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose
through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm
violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the
mid-to-late 2000s.
And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their
guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to
surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most
recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the
time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market.
About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or
pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40
percent obtained it from an illegal source.
It's so often repeated that it's gaining credibility, at least among the biased gun-rights fanatics who don't mind a bit of mendacity as long as it supports their pre-conceived notions. Firearms crime has decreased while gun ownership has increased. In order to make this comparison really work for their argument do you see what they did? They went back 18 years in order to maximize the decline in murders and suicides, even admitting that "The majority
of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years
of that time frame."
The major increase in gun ownership, as everyone knows, began a mere 6 years ago with the advent of the first black president. To me, that's blatant dishonesty.
I suppose in an attempt to deliver the old one-two punch to their adversaries' argument, they went on to cite one of the most misleading studies ever, over 40% of criminals obtained guns from other criminals.
As I've explained before, "other criminals" is not one of the major sources of guns used in crime.
First we need to identify the ways in which they currently do come into
possession of weapons. We'll eliminate one common fallacy right away,
that criminals get guns from other criminals. This may be true as far
as it goes, but it doesn't help us in our analysis. We're interested in
the original source of guns that are used in crime. If, for example, a
gun is stolen during a burglary and passed from criminal to criminal
before being used in a murder, that gun came from "Theft," which is one
of our main categories.
The question that keeps arising is this: if gun-rights folks have "right" on their side, why do they so often resort to dishonest means to make their points? The answer to me is obvious. They do not have "right" on their side. They are dead wrong and they know it.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
