They would go bankrupt if the illegal traffic stop. Or at least is what this study from San Diego university seems to say.
Well...atleast we are exporting something.
Can anybody explain exactly what the did for their study? I am not familair with th jargon.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OMG-ridiculous. The researchers literally counted the total number of purchase orders, balanced that against the reported sales per store, factored in the distance from a US store to the Mexican border, added the number of seized firearms in Mexico in vicinity of the US stores...and assumed the seized firearms came from the US stores!
Conveniently, they neglect to name any stores or include any registry numbers--I guess the criminals filed them all off...
seems legit.
Awesome they seem pretty right on why not assume they came from the United States we are the only country who makes firearms ...right? I mean firearms people actually want to use anyways.
Murder is a growth industry.
Based on the comments so far I'm guessing that no one here has actually read the study. The way I can tell, is you didn't immediately find fault with the wording of the title of the thread.
The study estimated 2.2% of the total value of gun sales went to Mexico. The 46.7% is the number of gun stores they estimate that have made money from the sale of a gun that ended up in Mexico, but that isn't as shocking.
The FBI recorded 16,800,000 background checks for new gun sales. The study says 253,000 may have been purchased for transport over the border annually over 2010-2012.
Based on the comments so far I'm guessing that no one here has actually read the study. The way I can tell, is you didn't immediately find fault with the wording of the title of the thread.
The study estimated 2.2% of the total value of gun sales went to Mexico. The 46.7% is the number of gun stores they estimate that have made money from the sale of a gun that ended up in Mexico, but that isn't as shocking.
The FBI recorded 16,800,000 background checks for new gun sales. The study says 253,000 may have been purchased for transport over the border annually over 2010-2012.
This fits plausibly with a fraction of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' own figures on straw purchases.
If the guns were bought from dealers they would be recorded in the FFL books and thus traceable. The drug trade has grown exponentially since 1997-1999 compared to 2010 in their study. Also working with other world groups including terrorists have led to more complex border tunnels and other smuggling methods. As the government becomes weaker and more corrupt in Mexico and the struggle against the cartels has moved to open warfare, with larger groups of former Mexican special forces defecting to the drug cartels it is not surprising more guns are sought and captured. For instance if cops started going door to door in San Diego raiding for guns, they would find millions not a mere 250k as seized by Mexican law enforcement.
This "study" is an opinion piece. Plus a large amount of the guns taken to Mexico are stolen, not purchased at a place like a local Walmart.
Based on the comments so far I'm guessing that no one here has actually read the study. The way I can tell, is you didn't immediately find fault with the wording of the title of the thread.
The study estimated 2.2% of the total value of gun sales went to Mexico. The 46.7% is the number of gun stores they estimate that have made money from the sale of a gun that ended up in Mexico, but that isn't as shocking.
Oh, haha, nice. You win for actually reading before posting.
This is just further evidence of why a national registry is needed. If you had to register these sales it would be very easy to identify and catch the people doing this. They'd have to turn to more difficult methods.
Tracking and tracing a gun is very difficult. They make it look super easy on TV, but it can take weeks or months for very competent agencies to trace a gun after it has been used in a crime.
This is just further evidence of why a national registry is needed.
No it isnt.
If anything, its evidence that the war on drugs is silly and counter-productive.
They aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah except one increases liberty and the other decreases it. I know which one I would pick.
And again, its not really evidence of anything either way, without a control group.
This "study" is an opinion piece. Plus a large amount of the guns taken to Mexico are stolen, not purchased at a place like a local Walmart.
Source? The Bureau of ATF estimates that only 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The rest come from illegal purchases, legal purchases, or straw purchases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah except one increases liberty and the other decreases it. I know which one I would pick.
It would still be a net increase for liberty, not to mention a dramatic and synergistic net gain for safety.
And again, its not really evidence of anything either way, without a control group.
We typically don't have that luxury when we're talking about national policy. Which is just another way of saying, "If we waited for a robust, causal body of research before making changes, nothing would ever get done." We are capable of making good policy decisions with imperfect information, and we're also capable of managing and mitigating the effects of bad decisions thanks to the political institutions we've developed.
National gun registry and background checks involve checking ID do they not?
Why is this acceptable but to check ID for voting is racist and classist?
If it is "taking votes away" how is it not an infringement on the second?
First, I think it would help your understanding if you came up with all the ways that you can come up with in which requiring identification to vote is different from requiring identification to purchase a firearm.
If you can't come up with a list, or refuse to, then I'll give you mine, but you'll get more out of it if you come at the issue from the other side, first.
Voter ID laws are dealing with an issue that comes up 0.000213% of the time. Or roughly on average 2-3 votes in the entire nation each presidential election. Actually, it's less than that, but between all the elections that happen over a span of 4 years, there are 2-3 cases total.
Andrew R, if you want to put guns in the same category, I'd like you to show me a similar number. That less than 1 crime every year (on average) is committed using a legally purchased gun, but by a criminal who should not have been eligible to purchase said gun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah except one increases liberty and the other decreases it. I know which one I would pick.
Yes, holding individuals responsible for their own actions decreases liberty. It decreases one's liberty to inflict harm on others without repercussions. That's not a liberty you ought to be arguing for.
|
Voter ID laws are dealing with an issue that comes up 0.000213% of the time. Or roughly on average 2-3 votes in the entire nation each presidential election. Actually, it's less than that, but between all the elections that happen over a span of 4 years, there are 2-3 cases total.
Andrew R, if you want to put guns in the same category, I'd like you to show me a similar number. That less than 1 crime every year (on average) is committed using a legally purchased gun, but by a criminal who should not have been eligible to purchase said gun.
It is racist and classist and you support it then....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is racist and classist and you support it then....Voter ID laws are dealing with an issue that comes up 0.000213% of the time. Or roughly on average 2-3 votes in the entire nation each presidential election. Actually, it's less than that, but between all the elections that happen over a span of 4 years, there are 2-3 cases total.
Andrew R, if you want to put guns in the same category, I'd like you to show me a similar number. That less than 1 crime every year (on average) is committed using a legally purchased gun, but by a criminal who should not have been eligible to purchase said gun.
Silly me, I forgot you don't actually want to have a conversation with me, you just want to talk at me.
That's not a liberty you ought to be arguing for.
It's noteworthy that Jefferson always wrote about "rightful liberty" as opposed to "absolute liberty." He even provided a definition.
That said, no one is actually arguing that gun ownership should automatically confer on the owner the right to commit murder -- it doesn't seem to me that TWK has ever said or implied that. And there would seem to be insufficient data to demonstrate that, in all societies, the net result of legal private firearm ownership is an increase in murder rate (in nations like Canada and the UK, lack of legal ownership -> less gun murders. In Brazil the opposite seems to be true.)
Did you know the ATF can't stop a gun retailer from selling a gun to a drunk person?
I also think we need to come up with ways to make it easier to catch people selling weapons illegally. I would love to hear from a second amendment advocate an actual plan to reduce illegal gun sales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know who else has got gun control?
Yeah, that's right Panem.
Smash Gun Control Through Workers Revolution!
Btw, Citizen R., I had the same reaction to their non-answering your question.
But then, of course, gun control has always been racist and classist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah except one increases liberty and the other decreases it. I know which one I would pick.Yes, holding individuals responsible for their own actions decreases liberty. It decreases one's liberty to inflict harm on others without repercussions. That's not a liberty you ought to be arguing for.
Im going to take you in good faith here, and assume that youre not trying to put words in my mouth.
I got no problem with holding individuals responsible for their actions. I DO have a problem with forcing people to register to excercise their inalienable rights. I would be just as against a proposal to register the names and addresses of anyone using their first amendment protected rights to protest a president or senator. Come up with a better way that doesnt include a registry and Id probably be behind it.
Just for the record, do you think that a national registry would not help in tracing guns used in crimes and in breaking the distribution networks?
Do you think that is not a useful goal?
Or is just outweighed by the consequences to liberty of having such a registry?
Edit: Or something else altogether?
In order:
Of course it would help.
Of course it would be useful. Just like mandating that everyone should buy a house would help in reducing homelessness and rebound the housing market, a definitely useful goal.
This.
Nope.
But then, of course, gun control has always been racist and classist.
This, as well. I can only imagine that our already over crowded prisons will swell with more black male youth with stricter gun control. Best increase taxes now to pay for more (probably privately run) prisons!
I absolutely hate that the left is holding up Reagan as some sort of hero for signing stricter gun control into law when the only reason he did so was because scary black people.
How is that even a relevant analogy. Requiring everyone to buy a house isn't even possible since most who don't own one couldn't come close to affording it.
Registering guns, OTOH, would only add a little bit of paperwork and wouldn't interfere with anyone's right to bear arms.
It is relevent insofar as that just because something is effective and would help, doesnt mean its a good idea. (remember the reason that most people didnt have health insurance was simply because they couldnt afford it. Mandate home sales, I say!)
And I would definitely consider it an infringement. Would you consider it an infringement if anyone planning to excercise their first amendment rights via protest had to first submit their name, address, etc etc to authorities first?
And which stricter gun control proposals are going to be targeting black male youth? Assault weapon bans? Magazine restrictions? All the various background check laws just make it harder to buy, they don't make it any more illegal to have. Even most of the assault weapon/magazine size proposals are on purchases, not arresting you for possession.
In order:
"Assault Weapon Ban": Yes, if its a true ban, not just on manufacture. (that, while tyranical, would be equal.)
Magazine restrictions: Most definitely. Lets say I dont comply. Lets say at the same time, a black male youth also doesnt comply. Who's more likely to get caught? If somehow, we both get caught, who is more likely to go to jail and/or serve a longer sentence?
Background checks/registration: Due to stop and frisk and other such harrassing tactics (protip: we dont really have any of that in "Pennsytucky") Who is more likely to fail background checks for trumped up or even blatently false charges and have their rights denied to them? Me or a black male youth?
That said, no one is actually arguing that gun ownership should automatically confer on the owner the right to commit murder -- it doesn't seem to me that TWK has ever said or implied that. And there would seem to be insufficient data to demonstrate that, in all societies, the net result of legal private firearm ownership is an increase in murder rate (in nations like Canada and the UK, lack of legal ownership -> less gun murders. In Brazil the opposite seems to be true.)
But, again, that's not what I or TWK were talking about.
TWK's statement was that requiring gun registration for all legally owned guns would diminish the liberty of the gun owners.
Blocking legislation or arguing against mandatory gun registration impedes law enforcement needlessly in cases of gun violence. It's like saying cars shouldn't need to be registered or require visible license plates. Those things impose a sense of responsibility to the owners, as does gun registration.
I'll forgive your argument since you were clearly unaware of the conversational context :)
Which doesn't lead to the black youth filling our overcrowded prisons. Just to not being able to buy the gun.
Or as like to call it, not being able to excercise their Constitutionally protected rights.
Of course, the same is true now, it's just easier to get around the checks. Especially if you're a good-old-boy buying privately from other good-old-boys.
And is the argument really that we shouldn't try to keep felons from buying guns because of the racially biased criminal justice system? Is the best response to that really, "Keep locking them up, but make sure criminals can buy guns legally"?
Once again, Id like to point out that "registration isnt a good idea" =/= "Lets give all the criminals a bunch of guns!!1!eleventy!1. I'd appreciate it if we can stop pretending that anyone is saying that.
You may have a point on the other two, although most proposals I've seen have only banned manufacture and new purchases. And demographics suggest that rural whites are more interested in assault weapons and large magazines.
And those same demographics say that those rural whites arent really causing all that much crime. So why single them out? Dont get me wrong, I dont think either the "good old boys" or black male youth should have to petition the government to excercise a right that the government isnt allowed to infringe upon!
You're not likely to be walking the streets in Harlem with a Bushmaster and a 50 round magazine hidden in your pants.
As an aside and for a musical interlude, I'd like to point out that I first learned what an AK-47 was from Ice Cube.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im going to take you in good faith here, and assume that youre not trying to put words in my mouth.
I got no problem with holding individuals responsible for their actions. I DO have a problem with forcing people to register to excercise their inalienable rights. I would be just as against a proposal to register the names and addresses of anyone using their first amendment protected rights to protest a president or senator. Come up with a better way that doesnt include a registry and Id probably be behind it.
You have to register a car.
You have to register to vote.You have to register to get married.
You need to have paperwork on file with appropriate authorities to own land or a house.
You have to have paperwork on file in order to receive wages.
Why is needing to have paperwork filed with appropriate authorities in the case of guns suddenly OMG TYRANNY!?
We want to hold people who own firearms responsible for acts done with their firearms, or at least be able to easily trace them back to them...but you're not willing to do a single thing to make that happen. K.
We both want to keep criminals from acquiring firearms, but you're (maybe I'm misremembering, forgive me if I am) against mandatory background checks.
*throws hands in the air*
Once again, Id like to point out that "registration isnt a good idea" =/= "Lets give all the criminals a bunch of guns!!1!eleventy!1. I'd appreciate it if we can stop pretending that anyone is saying that.
Being unwilling to do thing one to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms is functionally only a shade or two off from your hyperbolic phrasing. Which, by the way, no one here nor in other threads let alone thejeff has said or implied.
On the other hand, the only opposition I hear to gun registration seems to be "but...then they'd know where I live fer when the gubmint confuskaetz demz!!
You have to register a car.
You have to register to vote.
You have to register to get married.
You need to have paperwork on file with appropriate authorities to own land or a house.
You have to have paperwork on file in order to receive wages.Why is needing to have paperwork filed with appropriate authorities in the case of guns suddenly OMG TYRANNY!?
Why do you assume that Im for all or any of those?
We want to hold people who own firearms responsible for acts done with their firearms, or at least be able to easily trace them back to them...but you're not willing to do a single thing to make that happen. K.
sigh.
We both want to keep criminals from acquiring firearms, but you're (maybe I'm misremembering, forgive me if I am) against mandatory background checks.
*throws hands in the air*
Statists got to state, I guess. I mostly wanna give all the criminals all the guns. Whatevs, Ill continue the discussion, when you actually have something to discuss.
Edit re: background checks- I believe that there ahould be some sort of rule that states that a citizen shouldnt be subject to a search without probable cause that a crime has been committed. If only there was some rule like that! IF ONLY!!! (hint: there is.)
Being unwilling to do thing one to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms is functionally only a shade or two off from your hyperbolic phrasing. Which, by the way, no one here nor in other threads let alone thejeff has said or implied.
Oh, you mean the guy I was actually replying to?
On the other hand, the only opposition I hear to gun registration seems to be "but...then they'd know where I live fer when the gubmint confuskaetz demz!!
Which has been said by literally no one. keep trying though.
Edit- although now that you brought it up, its not exactly far-fetched, seeing as how the "gubmint" made it a habit to confiscate Native American arms before comitting genocide upon them. But at least it wouldnt happen in modern times, like in post-katrina New Orleans. /derp derp.
Are we talking about registration or about background checks?
Because I have no idea how you keep criminals from buying guns without checking who you're selling them too.Or what the objection to registration is, other than "It's my RIGHT!!!! And I don't wanna!"
The original post was about registration.
And what more objection do you need? It is inalienable right, after all, and would require nothing less than an amendment to change. Sure it WOULD make law enforcements job far far easier. But then, so would removing Miranda rights.
You say you're all for personal responsibility.
You have now argued against any and all mechanisms for enforcing said responsibility.
Requiring background checks and/or registration does not, in any sense whatsoever, deny you your rights to own one.
Speech is an inalienable right. Therefore I should be able to send death threats to people I don't like. Right? Riiiiight?!
no, I havent. Just the only one (1) that you've come up with. 2 if you count background checks. Both of which are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights. But nice try again.
Edit- to respond to your edit: Sure you should use your protected right to speech to do whatever you want, as long as it doesnt interfere with anyone else's rights.
Just like I should be able to purchase, sell, own, manufacture, etc any gun that I want. But I CANNOT use it to murder someone. that seems like a good deal to me.
What I would NEVER suggest is what you seem to think is a nifty idea. Before you use your speech, you should get that speech checked by government censors first to make sure it wont offend anyone and also, give them your name, address, etc just in case it does.
Workers revolution is the only solution.
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, honestly I dont. I really dont.
Edit- and Ive posted before Im ok with some felons buying guns. I guess it depends on what exactly the felony is. I think there should be some mechanism that allows certain felons to become normal people, with full rights again.