Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 21, 2010, 06:05:44 PM
-
where crooks get their guns heres a lil hard data on guns used to kill cops that surprised me in some areas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
-
Not really scientific but less biased than I was expecting.
-
I heard that all criminals get their guns when they take them away from their victims. That's why it's best to comply with the criminals' demands. Remember, when you fight back, you put more guns out on the street. And the NRA is already doing a good enough job of that, thank you.
-
Inquiring minds want to know:
Are the sort of criminals who kill law enforcement officers representative of the 'average crook'? I've read that criminals avoid killing police, is that not true?
-
Are the sort of criminals who kill law enforcement officers representative of the 'average crook'? I've read that criminals avoid killing police, is that not true?
It depends upon the city. In Milwaukee, WI the gang bangers have become so hopeless that many of them don't think twice about shooting a cop. There's been quite a few officers killed and wounded the last few years. In other places it's the last thing they want to do, as they know they'll do real time.
-
Several things that stood out for me.
Their "statistics" do not inicate that the "gun show loophole" is killing near as many people as the antis would have us believe.
Violent criminals with a long history do not belong back on the streets.
They skewed the number of stolen guns a bit, 77 stolen, 46 taken without permission, I don't see a distinction, stolen is stolen whether by family/friend or unknown thief.
Over all the article was pretty biased toward the anti side. All "interviews" with police were negative towards gun ownership.
-
Over all the article was pretty biased toward the anti side. All "interviews" with police were negative towards gun ownership.
article was about cop killings cops are real negative about that. who can figure
-
I noticed that they mentioned that straw purchasers were often not prosecuted. Why the hell is it even illegal if they don't use the law against those who break it?
-
How does that qualify as "hard data" again?
-
How does that qualify as "hard data" again?
you didn't read it? it outlines pretty precisely how they got their numbers? is there something you don't like?
-
The plural of anecdote is not data.
There is much confabulation of categories. For instance: " Separately, guns obtained or taken from relatives or friends who legally owned them were used in 46 killings." How mamy were "obtained" and how many were "taken"? Does that mean that some of the guns were intentionally given to the shooter by the lawful owner for the purpose of shooting a cop, while others were taken without permission of the lawful owner? Or Does it merely mean that in 46 instances the gun was "traced" back to a lawful owner who was a relative or friend of the shooter? I'm thinking it's the latter, and that the relationship between the lawful owner and the shooter has little actual significance.
All I can see is that if you want a gun and are willing to go outside the law in order to get one, there is pretty much nothing standing in your way. And how is that news?
stay safe.
-
I noticed that they mentioned that straw purchasers were often not prosecuted. Why the hell is it even illegal if they don't use the law against those who break it?
Prosecutors always say it's difficult to prove intent. There was a case in Milwaukee in 2000 where a guy did 26 straw purchases in one year from one store. An ATF agent tracked him for most of the year after the gun store alerted the agency after the second or third purchase. After the agent made his arrest, the US Attorney declined to press charges, saying he couldn't establish intent. :mad:
The newspapers prosecuted the gun store, though.
-
The plural of anecdote is not data.
There is much confabulation of categories. For instance: " Separately, guns obtained or taken from relatives or friends who legally owned them were used in 46 killings." How mamy were "obtained" and how many were "taken"? Does that mean that some of the guns were intentionally given to the shooter by the lawful owner for the purpose of shooting a cop, while others were taken without permission of the lawful owner? Or Does it merely mean that in 46 instances the gun was "traced" back to a lawful owner who was a relative or friend of the shooter? I'm thinking it's the latter, and that the relationship between the lawful owner and the shooter has little actual significance.
All I can see is that if you want a gun and are willing to go outside the law in order to get one, there is pretty much nothing standing in your way. And how is that news?
stay safe.
i guess its all in point of view i was suprised how many guns were gotten legally
-
I too noticed the anecdotes where they conveniently used the term "other" or "transferred somehow" like in the case of the teenage son STEALING his father's gun, giving it to another minor friend "who needed some cash" who then sold it to the final shooter.
It seems to me like the underlying argument they're pushing is: Is most every gun starts out as a "legal gun" therefore to prevent police shootings why not have any "legal guns"? However, the pesky election results over gun issues, and recent Supreme Court cases indicate that we're pissing in the wind, so we can't quite come right out and say this anymore.
This is why in the face of gun/crime hand-wringing I just shrug and say: "I don't care. Dead cops, kids, and whoever else are worth my gun rights."
That just leaves the anti's blinking with nothing else to say. =)
-
This is why in the face of gun/crime hand-wringing I just shrug and say: "I don't care. Dead cops, kids, and whoever else are worth my gun rights."
Agreed. Rights are not negotiable nor are they dependent on anything, except my responsibility.
-
Over all the article was pretty biased toward the anti side. All "interviews" with police were negative towards gun ownership.
article was about cop killings cops are real negative about that. who can figure
Obviously. Nobody is positive to having friends and colleagues killed off. But I'm quite sure not all cops are anti-gun.
-
Obviously. Nobody is positive to having friends and colleagues killed off. But I'm quite sure not all cops are anti-gun.
*nod* My most recent interaction with the local 5-0 resulted in the cop thanking me for getting my CCW permit and using it. The time before that the officer was curious as to the make and model and why I chose it in particular. Around here you would actually have to shop around for a bit before you found some anti's in the PD's.
-
The Washington Post is playing word games. FBI and NIJ studies have been consistent for decades.
I'm at work so I'll have to wait and dig up the last study I saw, I believe it was using Maryland data.
In any event, even guns ostensibly legally purchased by non-prohibited persons later used in crime (a number in the single percentages) are not sourced by the murdering end user "legally", giving or selling a prohibited person a gun is a crime.
-
....giving or selling a prohibited person a gun is a crime.
Yes.
But amazingly those who do it seem to be so less than concerned about that fact. I think that's why they are called "criminals".
WaPo is trying very hard to be able to say that the "vast majority" of guns used in homicides get into the hands of criminals committing homicide directly via legal sales channels. It aint working.
stay safe.
-
No surprises in that article. Armed and Considered Dangerous (http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-James-Wright/dp/0202362426/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290488656&sr=8-1-spell) is a pretty good book on this topic of where criminals get their guns and what kind of guns criminals prefer. It was a fairly large prison survey in the 80's, so it's a bit dated, but otherwise enlightening.
-
you didn't read it? it outlines pretty precisely how they got their numbers? is there something you don't like?
I skimmed the article, then read it in its entirety, and then skimmed it a little more. There are things in it that I don't like, yes. No serious bones to pick about the numbers, but still... I wouldn't call it accurate either.
The Washington Post is looking at numbers from between 2000-Sep 2010. They refer to it as a "comprehensive study" in their own article. They state that it took a year to compile. They claim their data comes from "documents" and "interviews" which is the first thing that makes my ears perk up. Closely following that, they actually cite the Tiahrt Amendment. Absolute genius. Oh, but it's cool, because the Washington Post can easily get around it via interviews with "more than 350 police officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, gun dealers, gun buyers, suspects and survivors" and give you the truth behind the scenes. Possible? Yes. Likely? Naaahhh.
Moving on, we find out that the article, the comprehensive study they spent a year on, is actually a "review" now.
Then you can look at their numbers and see that they're hit-or-miss. Then you can look at who they went to when obtaining some of their numbers and see that they're all heavily anti-gun organizations who haven been proven to be liars a countless number of times (Violence Policy Center, Mayors Against Illegal Handguns headline the show). Then you can see their odd lump-ins for some of their numbers. Then you can see they're better at being the ATF than the ATF. Then you can see them purposely leave out vital info, perhaps best illustrated when they touch on misdemeanors vs. felonies and make it sound like there is nothing short of a felony that dq's a person from gun ownership.
Yeah, I saw a lot I didn't like. Their numbers are the least of the problems I see. =|
-
I too noticed the anecdotes where they conveniently used the term "other" or "transferred somehow" like in the case of the teenage son STEALING his father's gun, giving it to another minor friend "who needed some cash" who then sold it to the final shooter.
It seems to me like the underlying argument they're pushing is: Is most every gun starts out as a "legal gun" therefore to prevent police shootings why not have any "legal guns"? However, the pesky election results over gun issues, and recent Supreme Court cases indicate that we're pissing in the wind, so we can't quite come right out and say this anymore.
This is why in the face of gun/crime hand-wringing I just shrug and say: "I don't care. Dead cops, kids, and whoever else are worth my gun rights."
That just leaves the anti's blinking with nothing else to say. =)
AJ! what happened to the cool avatar? oh- & I agree I love saying things like that too-now that we have Heller/McDonald