South Carolina is one of America's weakest gun-law states fueling the "iron pipeline" of weapons elsewhere, the anti-gun violence Brady Center said Wednesday.
Using federal data on the origins of guns recovered nationally in 2008, the Brady group said dealers in states with so-called "weak" gun laws supplied out-of-state guns at more than five times the rate that dealers in the states with "stronger" gun laws did.
The results indicate South Carolina is not shedding its reputation as a gun-buyers' haven, Brady Center senior attorney Daniel Vice said.
"Unfortunately," he said, "in South Carolina it is very easy for dangerous criminals to get deadly weapons."
Well, at least they're not saying it accounts for 90% of the guns traced. That should help everybody stay on topic, the topic being that too many guns found in cities like Chicago and New York are coming from places like South Carolina. The discussion of gun flow from the U.S. into Mexico became so bogged down over the question of percentage, that many people seemed to forget what the point was. In this case the point is clear. States like South Carolina have too easy access to guns and that's a problem for places where the people want to do something about the problem.
The Brady Center's analysis came from ranking the 50 states based on what it said was their overall and per capita contribution to interstate gun-trafficking. The formula covered the per capita rate of crime gun exports and guns taken across state lines and recovered in a crime.
The South led in the analysis, with Mississippi reporting the highest rate of recovered crime gun exports. Next in line were West Virginia, Alabama, Virginia and South Carolina.
What's your opinion? Do you think like I do that this refutes that oft-repeated refrain from the pro-gun crowd that crime in Newark and Camden and Chicago proves their gun laws don't work? Doesn't it make sense that if the same strict gun laws were applied everywhere, we'd see an improvement?
Please let us know what you think?
Criminals who want guns have money and no scruples about where those guns come from from. Close up one market and they'll shift to another. What happened when the war on drugs started? Did drugs disappear?ReplyDelete
There's currently a strong black market pipeline that brings in drugs by the shipload from overseas. Guns are easier to smuggle and more profitable than drugs.
Make guns harder to purchase throughout the US, you've just affected law abiding gun owners ... and done nothing to affect the serious criminals. They have multiple supply lines to fall back on everytime one is shut down.
Little Steve, That's a great theory, one which supports your position beautifully, but I'm afraid it doesn't hold water for the simple reason that all the criminals are not as determined as you say. If the easy access to guns in America were eliminated, the damage caused by many of these bad boys would be diminished and in some cases eliminated altogether.ReplyDelete
Now please inform your readers why the crime rates in Newark, Camden and Chicago(with string gun laws) are higher than the cities in the states with "weak gun laws."ReplyDelete
You're missing the whole point. If easy access to guns were the problem, these source states the BC speaks of should have higher rates of criminal shootings.
While not an exact comparison we have international examples of the same strict gun control laws applied everywhere. United Kingdom, Australia, etc.
In the UK, the crime rate is 4 times what it is here in America....did gun control reduce the crime rate? NOPE.
While not all criminals are motivated enough to find another source for a gun, they are motivated enough to find another weapon....re- knife crime in the UK.
In the meantime, you are forgetting those "strict gun control" laws are being challenged in many places for being unconstitutional. Washington D.C.'s gun ban didn't make it safer, yet just across the state line where guns are easy to get, crime was lower. Explain that as Kaveman said.
Right, and they're using the ATF's trace data that the ATF itself has said is not to be used for such purposes because it's insufficient.ReplyDelete
The Brady's, dishonest as usual.
Kaveman - I've never gotten a straight answer from any anti answering that question.ReplyDelete
If availability is the issue and it's so hard to get guns in-state in the states with strict laws, then shouldn't crime be lower in states with strict gun control, since criminals must go through the trouble of getting guns from out-of-state?
Notice Virginia is still a top state, despite the fact they ration guns. South Carolina also used to ration guns, but repealed it when it proved to have no effect.ReplyDelete
I'm going to be it ends up being a function of the rate of gun ownership. States with higher per-capita gun ownership end up being high source states. New Jersey and Hawaii both have very low levels of gun ownership. The lowest in the nation, in fact.
If easy access is the main cause of the problem, why isn't the problem worse where the access is easiest?ReplyDelete
When I did customer service for a major shipping company, I tracked gun purchases from here (SC) to all over the country--so I know how it is.ReplyDelete
Then you know that only FFLs can ship interstate by common carrier. Civilians can only do it under very limited circumstances. Selling a gun to someone in another state is not among the circumstances.ReplyDelete
Bob, Would you send me the link to this one again? I just can't believe it and would like to look into it now, something I should have done long before.ReplyDelete
"the crime rate is 4 times what it is here in America"
kaveman, Sebastian, Sevesteen, the idea is that guns are not the only factor. I never said they were. This is how I understand the problem. Cities like Chacago, Newark, Los Angeles have social inner-city problems, gangs, etc., that don't exist to the same degree in the cities of the easy gun states. That's why gun trafficking hurts them more than the cities like Richmond, Birmingham and others like that.
Maybe New Orleans is a good example of a place with all the dysfunction plus easy access to guns. They're usually number one, aren't they?
Gee MikeB, thanks for admitting you don't actually look at the evidence, facts and statistics we cite here.
Guess when your mind is made up there is no reason to look at anything that can change it, eh?
"the idea is that guns are not the only factor. I never said they were."ReplyDelete
Yet you rely on the Brady Campaign for doing your "research" for you and they do promote the idea that guns are the only factor.
You personally also promote the idea that the NRA thinks guns are the only answer.
Until you recognize your own hypocrisy, you will be viewed as intellectually dishonest.
BUNK!! The idea that the problems of the inner city in Chicago is any different than the problems of the inner city in Dallas, or New Orleans or any others state is absolute bunk!
What makes the difference?
Bob, Thanks for sending the link. I knew I could depend on you to make a snide remark about it. "Gee MikeB, thanks for admitting you don't actually look at the evidence, facts and statistics we cite here."ReplyDelete
The fact is I've read so many of your so-called statistical proofs, that turned out to be nothing of the sort, that now when I read an outlandish claim like the "4 times" I tend not to look at it.
Thanks again for the link. I'll get to it and let you know what I think.
If you think my statistics don't back up what I say, call me on it.
Put it in writing on your blog, on my blog, someplace. Make an argument that the statistics or information doesn't back up what I say. There is a chance I could be wrong. It's a very small chance but it is there. I'll admit that.
However, you just saying the statistics don't back up what I say doesn't mean anything with out PROOF, or EVIDENCE or Counter statistics to show that what I posted isn't true.
Make a list, point out every case and I'll support the statistics.
By the way, have you noticed a little trend? I and most of the other pro-rights folks cite statistics and facts from neutral sources while you cite statistics from anti-gun sources primarily?
Wonder why that is?
Bob said, "I and most of the other pro-rights folks cite statistics and facts from neutral sources while you cite statistics from anti-gun sources primarily?"ReplyDelete
False, Bob. As you very well know the "anti-gun sources" I cite get their data from the same place you do, usually the ATF.
Using federal data on the origins of guns recovered nationally in 2008 . . .ReplyDelete
Aren't the pathological liars at MAIG (and their pathological liar pals elsewhere in the forcible citizen disarmament lobby) telling us that the Tiarht Amendment makes such "federal data" unavailable?
Yeah, beowulf, keep calling people "liars." That's really helpful.ReplyDelete
I don't know what "federal data" they're talking about in this article, do you? I don't know if the Tiarht restrictions prevent every single scrap of data from being available? I don't think anyone ever said that.
If they have, and I quote, " . . . federal data on the origins of guns recovered nationally in 2008," what the hell else do they want?ReplyDelete
Liars are liars, Mikeb, whether you think it's "helpful" to point that out, or not.