The REAL Reason the Hard Left Supports Gun Control

The fact is most gun deaths occur in places where guns are completely legal to own and carry

 

Which is clearly irrelevant.

 

And yet true....showing that it is gun legal zones = killing zones

 

Nonsense. When guns are banned gun crime surges. Surely you know that by now.

“It's a culture where the gun appears to play a large part. It is a respect thing.
The gun is sometimes seen as an accessory - almost a fashion accessory - and is sometimes used to demand respect from their peer group." Paddy Meaney, Martin Wainwright, “Killings put 'Gunchester' back on crime map,” “Police warn that weapons have become a fashion accessory as 17-year-old becomes latest victim of Manchester's gangland rivalry London's gun violence: special report,”
The Guardian,” 1/14/00.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/14/ukguns.martinwainwright

And that was 4 years after the Gun Ban. Guns become far more valuable for criminals when the victims they prey on are disarmed.

 

Like NYC? Lol

 

Yes, I do wonder why it was moved here, since my thread clearly qualifies as a Political Opinion/Belief, which is the original subforum where it was posted. Can you give a good reason why it was moved here when it meets all the criteria needed to be posted in the Political Opinions and Beliefs subforum?

 

With due respect I think you may be making what is regarded as a classic error in statistical analysis (I think it;s called the survivorship bias). If you want to know more details look up a very clever man named Adrian WALD who made a significant contribution to the US war effort during WWII and to statistical analysis in general. (Seriously - look him up. I did once I heard about him and he made me start asking the question 'What am I missing in this picture' whenever [as a cop] I have to analyze a complex problem.

In summary what you stated as evidence 'proving' that registration of firearm does not work may well prove the opposite.

You have taken 2 sample groups (California and Arizona). One State (California) collected and recorded lots of data data on licensing and registration for a high proportion of the firearms sold in that state. The other State (Arizona) did not collect the data. One State duly recorded high levels of firearms (sold legally) falling into the hands of criminals (California). The other did not.

The problem lies in the fact that the statistic you are interested in collecting (guns in the hands of criminals) is absent in the sample taken from Arizona because they do not collect them. If other words if Arizona doesn't collect the data but California does then of course you will find a higher number of criminals obtaining 'legal' firearms in that State. And the Bureau can only base its analysis on the data sets available it can't extrapolate on firearms data Arizona doesn't collect.

The alternate explanation is nonsensical (allowing for population differences) criminals are flocking to buy guns in California exactly because they want the registration details to be recorded.

 

Where did I mention the word ban? True, I did mention ideas around public education and the (long term) potential benefits of registering firearms but not once did I say anything about bans. I'm more than happy to be criticized for ideas I do raise but please not for ones I don't.

 

Could it be because it's a gun control thread and this is the gun control sub-forum? That's just a guess though.

 

The above assumption of the matter is factually incorrect. It is not the individual states that are keeping statistics pertaining to firearms bought within the state as opposed to outside the state. Rather the data in question is collected and tallied by the ATF itself, which works for the united states federal government itself. It is the ATF that runs the serial numbers of all firearms submitted for tracing, which leads them to the manufacturer, who reports which federally licensed firearms dealer in what state the firearm in question was sent to, who in turn relays who the firearm was originally sold to.

Individual states simply do not need to maintain tallies of the percentages of firearms acquired locally as opposed to abroad, as such would not prove useful for anything. They cannot use such data to demonstrate the effectiveness of their firearm-related restrictions, if the same individuals who should not have firearms are still managing to acquire them regardless. Success is measured in terms of drastically lower rates of murder and assault, not the number of firearms acquired legally as opposed to illegally.

 

Gun registration is always intended to enable gun ban schemes.

 

There's no sound argument for the necessity of the state to have on record the owner of each of the >356,000,000 guns in the US.
Unless you want the capacity to confiscate them.

 

Which is why the Toomey/Manchin background check bill failed.
Too bad the perps are still in the Senate.

 

You need to provide facts supporting this statement. Otherwise it is just an opinion, and in the words of the great Harry Callahan .....

 

Prove it

 

Allowing for differences in population (California has just under 40 million citizens, Arizona has just over 7 million) you would expect differences in firearm statistics on a State by State basis. Arizonan's would have to own something like 5 x as many firearms to reach levels of illegal usage akin to citizens of California's (not impossible I grant you but not likely either).

On top of this the ATF can only calculate figures based on requests for traces received from the States concerned. Which is a variable it has no control over.

If however all States and Districts did collect statistics on new firearm sales then the ATF would be able to calculate accurate figures on State by State basis and the issue of tracking firearm purchases outside of a State where they were later used to commit crime would largely disappear.

P.S. Out of curiosity did you look up Adrian WALD?

 

Gun ban schemes REQUIRE gun registrations. Without registrations, .gov has no idea where the guns are.

 

You are still asserting that if (A) occurs then (B) must automatically follow - without any facts to support you. Cars are registered but neither the Federal or State governments have moved to 'confiscate' them. You need to prove that if firearms are registered the government will move to seize them. Fear is not fact, just an emotion.

 

It is an established fact in every country around the world where a firearms prohibition has been implemented. Long before the prohibition was done, registration was mandated.

 

Motor vehicles are not registered for the purpose of either safety or confiscation. Rather motor vehicles are registered for the purpose of taxation and the collection of assorted fees. It is a revenue-generation matter, no different than the tax collected on tobacco and alcohol products, despite the harm such products cause to the public.

 

Population size holds no relevance to the discussion. It does nothing to change the fact that forty percent of all firearms that are found in the possession of criminal individuals in the state of California, were originally sold in the state of California to begin with. Each and every single one of that forty percent of firearms was sold with a mandatory background check, registration with the state to facilitate identifying who owned it and where they live, permit requirements to make the acquisition legal with the state, and yet despite all of this identifying information they were still trafficked to the criminal element regardless. Suggesting that those who deal in the business of trafficking firearms simply does not care about the risk of being found out.

The ATF does not calculate figures, it merely reports the facts it is presented with. If a state is deliberately withholding firearms from tracing procedures as is being suggested by yourself, one could conclude the state of California is trying to hide something. Perhaps the number of firearms illegally acquired within the state is significantly higher than is reported, and the state is trying to make their firearm-related restrictions look more effective than they actually are.

Which they do not, therefore any discussion relating to how matters of "if only states did this" or "if only states did that" is entirely moot to the discussion of what is known, and the discussion of what is fact. And what is fact is that firearm-related restrictions, such as registration, licensing, and background checks on private transactions, do absolutely nothing to prevent the illegal acquisition of firearms, nor do they prevent so much as even a single murder from tacking place. Therefore they are devoid of legitimacy in even being considered as an option.

Who exactly is that, and what relevance do they possess to the current ongoing discussion?

 

To whom are you speaking? Are you unfamiliar with how to quote someone?

 

The anti-gun left has demonstrated a propensity to ban guns - handguns, 'assault weapons', 'junk guns', etc - at the state and federal level; in all of their attempts save one, they required the registration of existing guns that they grandfathered in.

There's no leap of logic at all to reasonably consider these registration requirements are a precursor to some future confiscation of said guns.

 

History proves it. Google Nazi Germany.

 

There are not any groups calling for the bans of any types of motor vehicles, nor have any states banned classes of motor vehicles with the legal requirement that the current owners turn them into the state, render them permanently inoperable or sell them to someone out of state. A car that is legal in say, Texas or Florida is legal to drive into New Jersey, New York and California.

That is not the case with some states and some classes of firearms.