Man Who Tackled Loughner Interviewed - Guess What?

reply to post by maybereal11


Remember when you said,

I have a hard time taking these kinds of sources seriously...I try not to cite the "Ban all guns..they kill children Institute" for my statistics either.

You might not know this but Mayors Against Illegal Guns is that group. They have had many mayors leave because they felt Bloomberg has been dishonest in his statements about the groups goals. Several of the Mayors said that Bloomberg had misrepresented himself and that the true aim of his MAIG group was to erode all gun rights for all citizens.

Bloomberg is on par with Richard Daley when it comes to anti-gun vitrol. Bloomberg wants NYC to change the laws so that you can be denied a permit to own a gun for having a speeding ticket, questionable credit, building code violations, or even for being fired from your job.

I like this bit from the Gotham Gazette. They were praising Bloomberg's crusade against guns. They mention that fewer murders were comitted with guns. Then they note,

Bloomberg's push to rid New York City of illegal guns has seen results. The number of guns recovered from crime scenes in the city dropped by 13 percent from last year. The number of people shot to death dropped from 347 in 2007 to 292 in 2008. Overall, murders increased from 2007 to 2008, but only due to an increase in crimes committed with knives.

Yeah, going after the guns dropped the rate of murders involving guns. However, as if they were working for the pro-gun crowd, criminals just started resorting to knives. Bloomberg's crusade pretty much proved what the second ammendment crowd has been saying for years.

As far as using traces for statistical purposes the BATFE says this,

The [B]ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics.

and

"A law enforcement officer may initiate a trace request for any reason. No crime need be involved. No screening policy ensures or requires that only guns known or suspected to have been used in crimes are traced... it is not possible to determine if traced firearms are related to criminal activity."

and

"[B]ATF does not always know if a firearm being traced has been used in a crime. For instance, sometimes a firearm is traced simply to determine the rightful owner after it is found by a law enforcement agency."

So, if the cops catch a guy suspected of breaking and entering, and they trace the guns to see if they are stolen, they go on that list. If a house is raided and the drug dealer has ten guns, they end up on the trace list. Traced guns are not always "crime guns."

Gun traces also tend to reflect which type of guns police are concerned with at the time. Guns can be traced by police at any time and for any reason. Say somebody breaks in to a house and steals a collection of revolvers. Police may go to several pawn shops and trace dozens of revolvers. If you are using trace data to collect statistics on "crime guns" it will look like a spike in revolvers as crime guns that day.

Also the BATFE will sometimes initiate traces on a dealer's entire inventory if they are investigating the dealer. That can mean hundreds of guns dumped on to the trace list at a time. None of them are crime guns. But, if one was originally sold in NC and is now sitting for sale in a New York gun store it has been "smuggled" according to MAIG. It doesn't matter that the owner might have moved, or that it might have been part of an inheritence and the person didn't want it.

Using trace information is a prime example of Mark Twain's saying. I don't think you knew that though. Most people have no idea and that is why the data works so well in swaying opinion.

how many percent of legal gun holders are criminals then, or are involved with some type of illegal activity, drugs, gangs, breakins, theft, crime of any kind that may see need to use such weapons against an innocent community. how many may or may not have a type of mental disorder to which a legally owned gun is within their grasp.

sure, the hardened criminals or even those who persist may find black market arms as a supply, but not all will or know how to go that road.
the innocents or law abiding citizens will still have ready access to weapons, that won't change. it's about regulating the control from those who can use them in purpose of breaking the law, threatening life of innocents or themselves, use as force with intent to harm or kill without lawful reasoning. by way of stronger laws and checks in place to determine who should or should not be able to puchase a legal firearm or those who continue to carry for use in criminal activities.

how many percent of legal gun holders are criminals then, or are involved with some type of illegal activity, drugs, gangs, breakins, theft, crime of any kind that may see need to use such weapons against an innocent community.

Well nobody can know the answer to that. Of course if they are in legal posession of a gun you now they are not a convicted felon, they are not party to a protective order restraining them from stalking or harassment, they have not been convicted of a violent midemeanor, and they have not been ajudicated mentally defective. Most people that own a gun legally have lived relatively law abiding lives.

sure, the hardened criminals or even those who persist may find black market arms as a supply, but not all will or know how to go that road.

Many criminals will still go that route. It has been proven time and again. Between 7% and 14% of the population admits to "trying" illict drugs every year. The percentages vary but they nearly always fall in that range People that want to try it will find a way. People that want a gun will find a way to get one.

Also all it takes is a block of wood, four materials, two hand tools and a bullet to make a gun. In the fifties street gangs would make "zip guns" out of car radio antennas. The black market for workable guns would flourish with new products that don't resemble traditional guns.


reply to post by redgy

reply to post by MikeNice81


Thanks for adding more light to the topic and context to my stats and sources..

Might not agree ...but you are "shooting" from an honest place which forces me to think and rethink.
Thanks for that.

reply to post by maybereal11


It was a good discussion. Something that is becoming increasingly rare when it comes to opposing views.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by maybereal11

 

It was a good discussion. Something that is becoming increasingly rare when it comes to opposing views.

Not ot blow smoke, but what is aparent to me is ...

(1) You are well informed on the issue, more so than myself.
(2) Your opinion isn't lazy or recycled. You aren't repeating something some talking head told you to think.
(3) You supported your opinion with links, stats and well thought out arguments that honestly required more horsepower to respond to than I am able to from a time perspective...my own opinion is more weakly built or premised than yours. Doesn't mean I am wrong...but certainly that possibility has been proven to exist and I will have to account for it before I enter this specific debate again.

So I am left with...I still have my opinion...but am much less certain that I am right than when the discussion began.

Originally posted by maybereal11
So I am left with...I still have my opinion...but am much less certain that I am right than when the discussion began.

It's an encouraging start and more than most antis are ever willing to admit.

If you want to delve further into the issue might I suggest:

"That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen P. Halbrook PhD, ISBN-10: 0945999380

"The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong" by John R. Lott PhD, ISBN-10: 0895261146