Why people need to think about what they read.

[JohnKSa]

Someone emailed this article to me--presumably because they felt it contained something that would be of interest or concern to me.

Report: 10 states sell half of imported crime guns

From the article:

"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."
...
Forty-nine percent (48.8%) of those guns were sold in Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, California or Arizona."​

Those 10 states make up over forty-six percent (about 46.4%) of the population of the United States according to 2008 estimates. So nearly half of the guns that crossed state lines and were used in crimes in 2009 were sold in 10 states that together make up nearly half the population of the country.

Yeah, makes perfect sense when you say it like that--but it probably won't sell newspapers.

 

[Al Norris]

John, I think there's more to this report than you have stated.

Consider: The BATF&E traced 145K guns and found 43K were sold in other States. That's only 29% of the traced guns. Of that group, 21K guns were found to be from the listed States, which works out to be 14% of the total guns traced were from the States listed (data as supplied by the article referenced above).

Yes, 49% of the 29%, were from those States... But... The stats are managed to produce a certain reaction. Would the MAIG have produced the same reaction if they had said that 14% of the guns used in crime came from 10 states that had 46% of the US population?

That's a mighty small amount of "crime-guns" from such a large population.

 

[FrankenMauser]

That's a mighty small amount of "crime-guns" from such a large population.

What's really interesting, is the large majority of "crime-guns" coming from such a small population.

Oh, wait.... That's the point we're always trying to make to antis...



I like this statement from the article:

]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.

What exactly are the rates?
"two-and-a-half times as much" is quite powerful, when considering, say, a 10% export rate. But if the real number is something like 0.03%... Multiplying it by 2.5 yields a whopping 0.075%. Yay! An insignificant statistic! (Sorry. Had to.)

 

[imthegrumpyone]

OK I thought, I still don't believe the article. That's another reason we in the state we are, we believe to much of what we read and hear, without using are brains that were given to us to reason out the untruths.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"There are three types of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[BlueTrain]

I for one don't believe much of what I read, including here.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

The anti gunners aren't looking for truth, they are looking for attention grabbing headlines.

But to your point John, most of their "facts" can easily be discounted when you dig just a little deeper.

 

[kraigwy]

Kind of reminds me of a article I read several years ago where the Murder Rate in Wyoming has increased 50%. Tech. that was true, it went from two murders that year to three.

 

[mete]

Sadly we can't trust the Gov't !! The illegal gun trade is big business throughout the world. The drug gangs have enough money to make their own if necessary.
Maybe the Gov't should be putting more effort into closing the border. 20 million illegals in this country and they're still comong. BTW there are Al Queda, Taliban and Hesbollah terrorists coming in .They're here and patiently waiting !

 

[johnbt]

I thought the terrorists just walked over from Canada. Coming through Mexico was too dangerous for them.

The gun article that ran in the local paper included a picture of a stainless Ruger revolver. Probably just a file photo, but as a representative example of a gun exported from one state to another and used in a crime it raised a serious question about the actual age of the guns that were recovered.

It was a stainless Ruger Security Six. Discontinued in the 1980s.

 

[Tuzo]

People will read and interpret what they wish.

In my career I have dealt with environmental regulators in several states and a couple of foreign countries. Many times, when confronted with a possible violation, I have had to educate regulators about the regulations they are paid to understand and uphold. In the regulatory environment words have specific meanings but, as usual, interpretation can be off the mark. Several encounters with regulators have shown that individuals will adhere to a personal agenda that is not the intent of regulation.

News reports, headlines, and articles are also subject to the writer's prejudices, misconceptions, and misunderstanding of fact. Readers suffer the same condition and see what is presented to them within a framework of knowledge that may or may not be factual.

My favorite catch phrase is "They don't think like we do."

 

[2damnold4this]

There are several problems with the report. Some of these problems have already been mentioned. Another problem is that the pool of traced guns isn't representative of the guns used by criminals. What we have are guns that were recovered (not necessarily from criminals. Some were turned in by their owners), then submitted for tracing and successfully traced.

Not all guns that are considered "crime guns" were used in a crime and not all guns used in a crime are recovered and submitted. If an owner of a firearm moves to New York and surrenders her gun when she realizes the laws prohibit her from possessing it, that gun is submitted for tracing as a crime gun because New York requests traces on all guns it collects. If a gun is used in an armed robbery in Arkansas and the police catch the criminal in possession of the gun he borrowed from his father, the gun isn't submitted for tracing as there is no law enforcement based need.

There are other problems. Many guns submitted can't be traced....got to get back to work.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Good point John.

There used to be a commercial, or public service announcement, I forget which, that made the astonishing claim that nearly 50% of all robberies occur between May and October, or something like that. I don't even remember what the point of the whole thing was but I do remember instantly thinking "Wow! Really?! 50% of robberies occur during 50% of the year! Who'da thunk!"

 

[MLeake]

on ajc.com today...

the Atlanta Journal Constitution's online site...

The crime guns subject got an article. They claimed that on a per capita basis, Georgia accounted for approximately 28 crime guns per 100,000 people.

What they didn't offer was any comparison to how other states fared, per capita.

Such data might support some of the posters in this thread, or it might hurt their case, but I don't know why the AJC didn't include it. (Given their bias, my guess would be it would have hurt their case, but I don't know.)

 

[woodguru]

Publicly aired information is getting way beyond biased. Lying and intentionally misrepresenting important facts is not freedom of speech, it's fraud.

I just saw an example of pure misrepresentation that perfectly illustrates how much difference it can make. California has a simple majority initiative up and it specifically retains 2/3rds for any tax increase issues.

An opposition television ad beats on it with the words "they could raise taxes any time they want".

No they can't as the initiative specifically spells out that that can't happen. I wouldn't know that had I not watched a pros and cons debate.

There are hundreds of thousands of people that are getting a pure misrepresentation. Is that freedom of speech or fraud?

Where is the line with misusing statistics in a biased way? People who are polarized on gun issues seem to want to misread things though.

I liked some of the posts above that restructured the numbers to be a bit more pertinent.

 

[ZeSpectre]

The OP is correct, people DO need to THINK about what they read.

The whole thing is one giant red-herring trying to shift blame onto states where firearms come from when the blame for crimes committed (with firearms or with anything else for that matter) rests completely on the shoulders of the lawbreakers who either trafficked in stolen goods, or purchased/obtained those goods when they knew it was illegal for them to do so.

 

[markj]

For example, in states that do not require background checks for handgun sales at gun shows,

What states are those? I may have to move, Iowa and Nebraska you get called in or need a permit to purchase.

 

[Bud Helms]

In states where direct handgun sales are legal between private citizens of the same state whom can legally own handguns, it makes no difference if the sale is at a Gun Show or in a Burger King parking lot. Of course the gun must be the private property of the seller.

I can't think of a state where private sales are permitted that prohibits them at a public Gun Show. Usually, if direct private sales are legal in your state, they are legal even at a Gun Show. If they are not legal in your state, they aren't legal anywhere, including a Gun Show.

So, the Gun Show loophole is not a loophole at all, of course. It is legal business as usual, in states that permit private sales.

 

[dusterdude]

oh yea,the mayor of richmond is already whining about closing the "gun show loophole",i guess he doesnt understand if the "loophole" is closed,the criminals will buy their guns thru the local trade paper we have here.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The "gun show loophole" is such a ridiculous argument.

Even in NY, where handgun transfers require the firearm to be added to a permit, it is common for folks to make the deal in a gunshow and then meet a couple miles up the road to finish the deal, just to avoid the hassle and expense of having a dealer at the show run a NICS. Especially with long guns, that have no requirement for personal sales. It's "Hey, I'll give you $500 for that... meet me up the road at McDonalds." Big deal. It's 100% legal.

The antis need more to do.