Gun Flow Between States

[mikeb302000]

http://www.miller-mccune.com/legal-affairs/patchwork-of-gun-laws-assists-traffickers-37425/">Miller-McCune.com reports on the findings of Brown University economist Brian Knight.

You may recognize this phenomenon if you’ve ever driven across the border from a state that doesn’t allow the sale of fireworks into one that does. Knight has also done research into state lotteries, where eye-popping jackpots in one state have been shown to cut into ticket sales in neighboring areas.

Of course, the stakes for gun sales are higher than they are for Roman candles or lotto tickets, but so too is the demand for states to be able to locally determine their own gun laws. Knight says his research suggests there would be significant benefits from establishing more uniform federal gun policy.

We didn't really need Ivy League Economists or smart journalists like Emily Badger who writes for Miller-McCune to tell us the obvious. But, Their affirmation is appreciated.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[krispos42]

1. Maybe the restrictive states should relax.

They're creating an artificial vacuum, then shocked when the market fills it.

[iverglas]

64. you do realize that the exports and imports in question

are traced CRIME GUNS, right?

Just checking.

[SteveM]

2. Ruby's Restaurant, was on the Marion County line. It served liquor...

when Alachua County did not. Had a lot of business. Is there a point to this except to say that prohibition doesn't work?

[Katya Mullethov]

3. Gun flow

That sounds vaguely familiar , like a good meme should .

[Oneka]

9. + approximately 2500, possibly more.

[Katya Mullethov]

12. That's enough for 2 full battalions

[DonP]

4. Does she mention which states do not require background checks?

Or any proof of residency?

I'm sure they must. I was told by less an authority than Mayor Daley that I could drive to Indiana, MIchigan or any other nearby state and buy any kind of gun I wanted, no questions asked. But all the gun stores kept asking where I lived and for the name of an Illinois based FFL to handle the transfer and Background check.

Perhaps it would help if the "Ivy League Economists", "smart journalists" or flaky Ex Pats had ever actually tried to buy a firearm and knew WTF they were talking about?

Face facts, you are not getting any new gun laws at the Federal level. Not this term, not next term, no more.

Even worse news for your side. It turns out our newest justice, Elena Kagan, is now a shooter and a hunter and is turning to the "dark side" of the force.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/19/kagan-on-faith-the-high-court-and-hunting/

[gejohnston]

5. since this is a duplicate thread, I'll

copy and paste my post in it. I added some improvements.

So in other words, current federal laws, like Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and Gun Control Act of 1968 are not deterring this.

After reading this, here are some questions I have that this study does not address:
Are there "straw purchasers" (who are violating current federal laws) buying and shipping directly?
Is the trace only to original purchaser (most likely) who may have moved to New York and it was stolen years later? The trace does not explain how the guns got there, only where and when the original sale took place. In other words, you are reading more into it than it is there.

Also, how does it explain Hawaii and US Virgin Islands? The latter having the highest murder rate in the US and among the highest in the world?
Why an economist instead of criminologist? I seems that most "we need more gun control" studies tend to be done by economists and MDs and not criminologists and I never seen one published in a criminology journal.

He cites advocacy groups (like MAIG and Brady) almost exclusively instead of the ATF or law enforcement agencies as sources for his information. Why?

He ignores Mexico's primary gun source being the southern border (theirs, as pointed out by Wikileaks and reported by McClatchy and Latin American Herald).

Oh yeah, where is the raw data and is this peer reviewed? If so, are the referees criminologists or other nonexperts? Did he receive grants for this project? If so, who? If so, what were the conditions of the grant?

Granted, I am not an economist. I do not have a PhD in math or statistics, but I do know the expression "garbage in garbage out" means.
http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Brian_Knight/guns4.pdf

So Mike, can you answer it?

[ileus]

6. That's the great thing about America...Freedom, some states are better at it than others.

[DanTex]

7. A good study.

This is a pretty nice study, and it shows that to reduce gun violence, it's not enough to just have reasonable local gun laws, because they can be undermined by trafficking from weak laws in nearby states. As you point out, this won't come as much of a surprise to anyone familiar with gun violence issues, though it is useful to have some of these effects quantified.

The bigger picture here is that, with gun violence as with global warming, as more evidence comes in, it becomes increasingly difficult for right-wingers to defend their reactionary stances while attempting to maintain the guise of intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, the public debate on both topics often devolves into talking point wars, and both the energy lobby and the gun lobby have become experts in denying science and propagating misinformation.

And they have been somewhat successful, due to the unfortunate anti-intellectual and anti-scientific streak that affects many right-wingers and pro-gunners in America. However, among scientifically literate people, who require evidence rather than talking points, things like this study, or the global warming study that came out earlier this week do matter. One can only hope that rationality and sanity will prevail in the longer run, as the scientific evidence becomes increasingly difficult to deny.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Unfortunately for your assertion, gun violence has *declined* in recent years...

...even as the number of guns has skyrocketed. See for yourself: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Your attempt to liken your opponents to global warming deniers has failed.

[spin]

11. Evidence proves that human activity has an effect of global warming ...

but the evidence does not support the conclusion that more guns in the hands of American citizens results in more crime. There is absolutely no doubt that firearms sales have skyrocketed in recent years.

USA Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies Combined
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 AM



Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

So with all these firearms ending up in the hands of civilians, surely the violent crime rate would at least increase.

WRONG!!!

Crime in the United States


Violent crime rates in the United states per 100,000 population beginning in 1960. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.


Property crime rates in the United states per 100,000 population beginning in 1960. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).<1>...emphasis added

***snip***

The year 2010 was overall the safest year in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010.

From 2000-2008, the homicide rate stagnated.<8> While the homicide rate decreased continuously between 1991 and 2000 from 9.8 homicides per 100,000 persons to 5.5 per 100,000, it remained at 5.4-5.7 until 2009, when it dipped down to 5.0, and continued to drop in 2010 to 4.8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

You accuse "pro-gunners" as having a "anti-intellectual and anti-scientific streak". Where is your scientific evidence that more firearms increase the crime rate? You are using a study on crime in an area that has extremely restrictive gun laws which you call "reasonable" and drawing a conclusion that if all areas of the nation had the same extremely restrictive laws, crime would drop in cities like New York.

Interestingly enough gun laws in Washington D.C. were recently loosened because of Supreme Court decisions. What happened?

Chicago Violent Crime Falls In 2010
January 3, 2011 4:12 PM

CHICAGO (WBBM) — Chicago’s murder rate is higher than some other big cities, but Police Supt. Jody Weis notes that the last time it was this low in the city, Mayor Daley’s father was mayor and Lyndon Johnson was president....emphasis added

***snip

“Consider what was going on when the city experienced a lower homicide total,” Weis said. “A gallon of milk was 95 cents. A gallon of gas was 31 cents. A loaf of bread cost 21 cents. That year was 1965.”

There were 395 murders that year; there were 435 in 2010.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/03/chicago-violent-crime-falls-in-2010/

Crime in Washington, D.C.

***snip***

In the early 1990s, Washington, D.C. was known as the "murder capital",<9> experiencing 474 homicides in 1990.<10> The elevated crime levels were fueled by the crack epidemic in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The crack was brought into Washington, D.C. by Colombian cartels, and sold in a drug market known as "The Strip", the largest in the city, located a few blocks north of the United States Capitol.<11> A quarter of juveniles with criminal charges in 1988 tested positive for drugs.<9> The number of homicides in Washington, D.C. peaked in 1991, followed by a downward trend in the late 1990s. In 2000, 242 homicides occurred,<10> and the downward trend continued in the 2000s. There were 181 murders and non-negligent homicides in Washington, D.C. in 2007,<7> and 131 homicides in 2010, the lowest such tally since 1963.<12>...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

[DanTex]

17. Yes, and evidence also proves that gun availability results in higher gun violence...

Believe me, the global warming deniers can come up with just as many useless and misleading factoids as you can.

They'll argue that the temperature stations are unreliable because many are located near sources of heat like air conditioners, that recent warming is due to solar activity rather than CO2, that it's part of a cycle and we're emerging from the little ice age, that temperatures were higher a few centuries ago, during the "medieval warm period" when Greenland was actually green. They'll argue that temperatures haven't gone up since 1998. That CO2 only caputures radiation at certain wavelenghts, and so the CO2 warming effect is already saturated. That CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and there are a lot of other more important factors driving temperature changes. They'll claim that the observed increases in temperature over the last century is less than 1 degree Celsius, much less that what those climate models predict it should have been, and that at this rate the total warming will only be 1 or 2 degrees Celsius, not enough to cause any serious consequences. They'll say that in the 70's everyone was afraid of global cooling, but now it's global warming, it just goes to show that those elitist liberals in their ivory towers are just looking for an excuse to destroy the capitalist economy they hate. And so on...

So don't think for a moment that you're the only one who can back your anti-scientific stance with some clever talking points or neat looking charts. Everyone who has ever denied science has always had neat looking charts.

The difference between propaganda and science, though, is that science looks at the evidence systematically, using well-founded and well-tested procedures to analyze data and draw conclusions. As with global warming, once you get past the bloggers and the propagandists, the superficiality of the talking points disappears. For example, while some weather stations may be unreliable, most of them are reliable, and there are statistical techniques that allow for an accurate global reconstruction of temperature histories even with a few unreliable data points. This was confirmed by the Berkeley study that came out earlier this week that got some attention (although, really, even before the Berkeley study, there wasn't much doubt about this).

With the gun issue, your often-repeated talking point that gun sales are up while crime is down is similarly wrong, which is why you don't hear any scientists making that claim, just gun militants and bloggers. It is true that crime has been dropping for about two decades (coincidentally, the drop started right around the time of the Brady bill). Of course, gun ownership (which is different from gun sales) has also been dropping, according to what is widely considered the most accurate measure, the General Social Survey. However, since a lot of things affect crime rates, the fact that gun ownership and crime dropped at the same time doesn't prove much. To really demonstrate that the two are linked, you have to look at the issue in much more detail, gathering data at state and county levels. That takes more effort and scientific skill thank just plopping up a few charts, but at this more granular level, the link between gun ownership and homicide becomes clear.

If you actually are interested in this scientific approach, here are two studies that you can take a look at:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

[spin]

19. How can you possibly make the conclusion ...

that "evidence also proves that gun availability results in higher gun violence."

Are you denying the fact that data from the NICS background check system shows that in the time frame between November 30, 1998 and December 31, 2009 a total of 110,017,832 background checks were preformed which means that MORE than 110 million firearms were sold to civilians. Surely you can agree that more firearms are available and in civilian hands today than were in 1998.

You can verify this statistic on the FBI web page at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet by clicking on the link at the right for Reports and Statistics...- Total NICS Firearm Background Checks, Nov. 30, 1998 - September 30, 2011 (pdf) which will take you to this chart at: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/100311TotalNICSBackgroundChecks.pdf

And you can verify that the homicide rate has dropped by visiting this Bureau of Justice Statistics page that displays this graph.


source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm

And this Bureau of Justice Statistics web page with this graph:



The basic fact remains that more guns DID NOT lead to more crime or to more homicides.

The authors of your first link acknowledge that they were funded by a grant from the Joyce Foundation which is hardly an organization noted for fairness and impartiality on the gun control issue:

Acknowledgements
The research reported here was supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation, and
was conducted in part while the authors were residents at the Rockefeller Foundation’s
Bellagio Study and Conference Center.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

I could post information from the NRA-ILA but I avoid this practice as they are just as biased on the pro-gun gun side as the Joyce Foundation is on the opposite side.

Your second link has a copyright date of 2001 and uses data largely accumulated during the 90s.

Why do I get the impression that you are accusing me of supporting the global warming deniers in order to debunk my support of firearms? Did I not title the post you are replying to "Evidence proves that human activity has an effect of global warming..."?

.

[DanTex]

24. Did you read my post? Did you read those two studies I cited?

Do you understand that gun ownership and gun sales are different things? Or is this just too complicated for you?

Honestly, for you to keep driving that same talking point about gun sales is actually even more silly that the average global warming denialism. Again, the number of guns is not the only thing that determines homicide rates. There are other factors as well. In the same way that CO2 is not the only thing that determines the temperature. But, even so, the rate of gun ownership which is more important than the number of gun sales, has actually been dropping for two decades.

Let me try and explain this by analogy. If you do a little googling, you'll be able to find some charts, like this one about raw temperature measurements from satellites since 1997:

or this one, reconstructing temperatures back for a millenium, from the 1990 IPCC report:


Based on those charts, it doesn't look like there's any potentially catastrophic global warming going on, does it? See how easy that was? Just like you have found some charts that seem to cast doubt on the link between guns and gun violence, so could I go get some nice-looking charts to deny global warming.

Never mind that neither of those graphs are actually the most reliable estimates of global temperatures, or that starting a graph at 1997 is blatant cherrypicking, or that global warming doesn't mean every year is hotter than every year before it, just over the long term, etc. But, if I were a propagandist, I could simply ignore those minor details, in the same way that you ignore the difference between gun sales and gun ownership, or the fact that there are much better ways to measure the association between gun ownership and gun violence than simply looking at the time trends over all the US, because these are affected by many other factors, and so you need to look at more granular data to arrive at statistically sound conclusions.

That is why, with guns as with global warming, the evidence comes in the form of actual scientific analysis of data, not from a few charts you find on google. Yes, charts are useful for presenting data, but you need to look at the data scientifically and systematically to make sure you're actually drawing accurate conclusions. Because there are always subtleties, like the difference between gun sales and gun ownership. And there are always ambiguities, and areas where knowledge is incomplete, etc. That's why the science continues, with studies like the one from this OP.

[gejohnston]

30. that is relevant how?

guns/crime and climate change nothing alike. It only serves to make the "anti-intellectual" straw man for you.

[spin]

36. I have to admit that your attempt to tie the issue of global warming to gun control ...

is unique. However we are not discussing global warming in this forum, and I am not denying that humans contribute to global warming.

You link to an outdated study and one funded by the Joyce Foundation, a organization with a long reputation as being very opposed to gun ownership, and expect me to be impressed.

I post data from the FBI and the Department of Justice Statistics. I do not believe that either organization cherry picks or fudges data to support any political position or issue. The data shows that firearm sales have skyrocketed in the same time frame that the violent crime rate including the homicide rate caused by handguns has dropped dramatically.

You will notice that I never said that the increase in firearms has caused a decrease in crime. Far too many factors are involved to make that conclusion. However it is easy to conclude that the increase in the number of firearms is not the most important factor in determining the rate of violent crime.

First lets look at the data on NICS background checks. I believe that you will agree that a hell of a lot of firearms have been sold in recent years.

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Justice Information Services Division

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations 2010

***snip***

The FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section has processed firearm background checks since November 30, 1998. Since that time, the experience gained enhances national security and public safety by identifying, developing, and implementing improvements in support of the NICS Section's mission. Striving to provide effective and efficient service to its customers, highlights of the NICS operations in 2010 include the following:

• From the inception of the NICS on November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2010, a total of 124,427,448 transactions were processed through the NICS. Of these, 60,279,827 transactions were processed by the NICS Section and 64,147,621 transactions were processed by the Point-of-Contact (POC) states. Of the 14,409,616 background checks processed through the NICS in 2010, a total of 6,037,394 transactions were processed by the NICS Section and 8,372,222 were processed by the POC states.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2010-operations-report/2010-operations-report-pdf

Now lets look at some more graphs from the Bureau of Justice Statistics web page: Can you actually argue that the sales of firearms has led to an increase in violent crime in our nation? Note that these graphs are in addition to those that I posted in post #19

Firearms and Crime Statistics
Victimization



Note: The violent crimes included are rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Ongoing since 1972 with a redesign in 1993, this survey of households interviews up to 134,000 persons age 12 and older in as many as 77,200 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime.





Note: Crimes include the UCR index offenses of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Source: FBI, The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

But you say:

"Do you understand that gun ownership and gun sales are different things? Or is this just too complicated for you?"

I sense that you have a feeling of intellectual superiority and it has been my experience that people who have that attitude. while often well educated, lack commonsense.

First you present no data to show that there is a difference between gun ownership and gun sales. Perhaps you believe that all the firearms sold in the last decade went to existing gun owners. However a very recent survey contradicts that viewpoint.

October 26, 2011
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
Majority of men, Republicans, and Southerners report having a gun in their households

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.



The new result comes from Gallup's Oct. 6-9 Crime poll, which also finds public support for personal gun rights at a high-water mark. Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership....emphasis added

Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) are more likely than Democrats (including Democratic leaners) to say they have a gun in their household: 55% to 40%. While sizable, this partisan gap is narrower than that seen in recent years, as Democrats' self-reported gun ownership spiked to 40% this year.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

[DanTex]

37. The most accurate source of data for gun ownership, according to basically every social scientist

who has studied the topic, is not Gallup, but the General Social Survey, performed by the National Opinion Research Center. It's a higher quality survey in terms of sample size, response rate, etc., and that's why you find GSS data used in studies by criminologists and social scientists. However, even from the Gallup data that you posted, you can see that gun ownership dropped in the late 90's, at exactly the same time that the big drop in crime rates occurred.

And, yes, there is a very close similarity between global warming and gun violence, in that the scientific community by and large believes one thing, while right-wing bloggers believe another.

You see, it's not your data that's wrong, it's your method for drawing conclusions. That's the reason you can't find any reputable scientists drawing the conclusion you draw from the crime statistics. The reason I posted the statistics on global warming is to illustrate that the same methods you use (basically looking at pictures and not performing any actual statistical tests) could easily be used (and are used) to deny global warming (often by the exact same people). There are plenty of other scientific studies on the gun violence issue, like the one posted by this OP, but I have no doubt that you'd be able to convince yourself that every single one is somehow flawed and biased, without even reading them, just like you did with the two that I linked to.

And that's exactly what global warming deniers do with all the climate studies.

[spin]

42. My daughter worked for the census last year ...

and she found people were reluctant to reply to the simple questions on the census form.

You make an assumption that people will reply honestly if asked if they own firearms by a surveyor. Let me assure you that this is FALSE. That's why I highlighted this portion of the Gallup poll survey:

The new result comes from Gallup's Oct. 6-9 Crime poll, which also finds public support for personal gun rights at a high-water mark. Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership.

If a stranger showed up at my front door and said they represented the General Social Survey and then asked if I owned firearms, I might simply lie. In fact that may cause the Gallup poll to underestimate the actual number of people who own firearms. I actually asked a number of gun owners if they would answer truthfully in such a situation and the majority replied that they would not as information about gun ownership is very personal. You might have a higher rate of people replying truthfully if you asked if they cheated on their income tax.

There is no possible way that you can tell if the information you get from any individual on a survey is totally accurate and true. When you ask questions about gun ownership, your results are unreliable at the best and since those who do not own firearms are more likely to answer honestly, the results will be skewed toward a lower number of gun owners.

[iverglas]

65. I'll bet you're familiar

with literature about cognitive development and the acquisition of reasoning-by-analogy skills, and also what concrete thinking is a symptom of ...

If not, it's something you might want to spend 5 minutes contemplating. ;)

Also, if you've never read the amusing little thing called "unskilled and unaware of it", google that up too!

[Callisto32]

13. Just because you used a lot of words to say it...

doesn't mean you didn't just end your "argument" with "besides, you guys are dumb!"

[DanTex]

18. I didn't and wouldn't say "dumb".

I know some global warming deniers who are very intelligent people. Some have an encyclopedic knowledge of anti-GW talking points. They can go on for hours, and make what would seem to be a very persuasive case. Although the scientific evidence is in fact clear, that doesn't mean that all global warming deniers are dumb. In my experience, the tendency to deny science is not so much about stupidity versus intelligence, but more important is whether beliefs are driven by ideology rather than evidence.

In general, if you start out by looking at data and asking scientific questions, you will likely end up believing the science. Yes, there are some uncertainties and unanswered questions, but by and large, an impartial look at the evidence pretty clearly points to man-made global warming. But if you distrust science as an institution, and feel that people in ivory towers are corrupted by grant money and are conspiring against capitalism, then you are much more likely to be distrustful of whatever the research says. You will take every grain of uncertainty (like the fact that some weather stations are unreliable, or that the accuracy of certain tree-ring time series as proxy temperature measures has dropped off in recent decades) and blow it way out of proportion.

[gejohnston]

22. can be and sometimes are

and feel that people in ivory towers are corrupted by grant money

or could be driven by ideology. Supply siders are a perfect example. It is not about distrusting science as an institution, it is simply recognizing that the institutions are ran and operated by humans, none of which are immune from the same flaws as anyone else. In this case, he does not get any of his data from law enforcement or any other neutral source. He gets all of it from Brady and MAIG. It would be foolish to take that any more seriously than it would be foolish for you to take him seriously if he cited only the NRA or GOA.

Corrupted by grant money? I think it was Robert F. Kennedy that coined the word "biostitute" to describe such a thing.

[spin]

23. Question... Do you feel that those who support gun ownership ...

are global warming deniers?

If so did you make this determination by using this logic.

Only conservatives deny global warming.

Only conservatives support gun rights.

Therefore a person who supports gun rights has to be a global warming denier.

Let me assure you that not all people who support gun rights are conservatives or global warming deniers.

[DanTex]

25. No.

Not all GW-deniers are conservatives. Not all pro-gunners are GW deniers. Etc. I usually disagree with things of the form "all _____ are ______".

It is true that most pro-gunners are conservatives, and I would guess that most pro-gunners are also GW-deniers, but I definitely wouldn't say all. I understand that there are people representing all combinations of beliefs and ideologies.

[gejohnston]

15. self delete

[gejohnston]

16. nice but

flawed if not full of shit. Here are the problems it has:

Made no reference to current federal laws that include background checks, selling or buying to or from anyone not a resident of that state is a federal crime. That includes private sales. How does current federal law fit in to this?

Are there "straw purchasers" (who are violating current federal laws) buying and shipping directly? The bad guy is not just driving across states lines to buy it.
Is the trace only to original purchaser (most likely) who may have moved to New York and it was stolen years later? The trace does not explain how the guns got there, only where they came from. Oh that's right, his piece acts as if there are no federal laws.

He cites advocacy groups (like MAIG and Brady) almost exclusively instead of the ATF, FBI or any other law enforcement agencies as sources for his information. Why? Could it be that if he did, he would have to explain the number of crime guns from New York and California showing up in places like Maine and Arizona? It is the biggest hint of half assed to incompetent or dishonest. No matter how flawless the math, if you put questionable numbers in, you get bogus numbers out.

Also, how does it explain Hawaii and US Virgin Islands? The latter having the highest murder rate in the US and among the highest in the world?
Why an economist instead of criminologist?

It seems that most "we need more gun control" studies tend to be done by economists criminologists. I never seen one published in a criminology journal. Why? Come to think of it, a lot of climate science denial "studies" tend to be done by economists.

Last question. Are you capable of directly countering this critique with out being patronizing and arrogant about how scientifically literate you pretend to be? If not, it shows that you have nothing and have no idea what you are talking about.

[DanTex]

20. OK, since I'm in a good mood...

I should start out by saying that it would help if you were to actually read the study before trying to critique it. Most of your questions would be answered immediately.

Made no reference to current federal laws that include background checks, selling or buying to or from anyone not a resident of that state is a federal crime. That includes private sales. How does current federal law fit in to this?

The study is about how differences in state gun laws affect gun flow. Since federal law is the same in all states, that would have no differential effect.

Are there "straw purchasers" (who are violating current federal laws) buying and shipping directly? The bad guy is not just driving across states lines to buy it.
Is the trace only to original purchaser (most likely) who may have moved to New York and it was stolen years later? The trace does not explain how the guns got there, only where they came from. Oh that's right, his piece acts as if there are no federal laws.

Unlike you, the author doesn't pretend to know the "most likely" way guns get trafficked with no data to back it up. He shows that state gun laws have a definite and statistically significant effect on gun flow, regardless of the method of trafficking.

Also, please read section 8: "Time-to-Crime Analysis". He finds a "strong and statistically signicant correlation between gun laws and time-to-crime", indicating that a higher fraction of the gun flow from weak law states is criminal trafficking (whereby guns move more quickly). It's funny what you learn by, umm, actually reading something before criticizing it, dont you think?

He cites advocacy groups (like MAIG and Brady) almost exclusively instead of the ATF, FBI or any other law enforcement agencies as sources for his information. Why? Could it be that if he did, he would have to explain the number of crime guns from New York and California showing up in places like Maine and Arizona? It is the biggest hint of half assed to incompetent or dishonest. No matter how flawless the math, if you put questionable numbers in, you get bogus numbers out.

Section 5: "Data and Selection Issues". The gun flow data comes from ATF traces. And yes, he does account for guns from NY and CA that end up in places like ME and AZ. In fact, he constructs that "the full 50-state gun tracking import-export matrix", meaning his model takes into account the flow of guns from every state to every other state (except AK and HI, see below).

Also, section 4: "Model of Gun Trafficking". What you don't seem to understand is that this sort of science doesn't predict the flow of 100% of the guns. There will still be some guns that flow in the other direction, just like there will still be cold days even with global warming.

Name-calling the author is a very poor substitute for reading and understanding.

Also, how does it explain Hawaii and US Virgin Islands? The latter having the highest murder rate in the US and among the highest in the world?
Why an economist instead of criminologist?

Section 5: he excludes HI (and AK) because, they are geographically separate from the rest of the US, so gun flow patterns would be different. Oh, yeah, and he also excludes territories like USVI, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. I think you should write to the author personally and insist that he retract this paper immediately!! How can anyone study gun flow without including the Northern Mariana Islands!!

It seems that most "we need more gun control" studies tend to be done by economists criminologists. I never seen one published in a criminology journal. Why? Come to think of it, a lot of climate science denial "studies" tend to be done by economists.

This is not a "we need more gun control" study, it is a study of gun flow. And, there are plenty of gun violence studies by criminologists (like Phil Cook, Jens Ludwig, Colin Loftin, Brian Wiersema, Frank Zimring, Anthony Braga, David McDowall, Martin Killias, etc.) just that you either don't know about them or are ignoring them all. But, since gun violence is interdisciplinary, you also get studies from economists and public health people.

Last question. Are you capable of directly countering this critique with out being patronizing and arrogant about how scientifically literate you pretend to be? If not, it shows that you have nothing and have no idea what you are talking about.

I consider it important to understand something before trying to critique it. If you find that arrogant and patronizing, then we have a difference of opinion.

[gejohnston]

28. I read the study

The difference is that I also read the end notes and actually understood what I read. It reads more like a monograph than a study. You also ignored my main flaw I find in it.

The study is about how differences in state gun laws affect gun flow. Since federal law is the same in all states, that would have no differential effect.

Given the nature that the federal laws would affect the flow, yes it could. To illustrate, go to another state and go to any gun store and try to buy a handgun. See how long it takes for the dealer to explain to you that would be a federal crime to sell to you. Applies to private persons to, or gun "buy backs". (for example if a church in KC, MO is giving away Wal Mart gift cards, and you drive across the river from KC, KS to take advantage of it and get rid of a pistol that has been sitting around the house, you and the church committed a federal felony.)

Unlike you, the author doesn't pretend to know the "most likely" way guns get trafficked with no data to back it up. He shows that state gun laws have a definite and statistically significant effect on gun flow, regardless of the method of trafficking.

I don't pretend to know either, but if he could find and added such information in his study it would give it value.

Section 5: "Data and Selection Issues". The gun flow data comes from ATF traces. And yes, he does account for guns from NY and CA that end up in places like ME and AZ. In fact, he constructs that "the full 50-state gun tracking import-export matrix", meaning his model takes into account the flow of guns from every state to every other state (except AK and HI, see below).

Also, section 4: "Model of Gun Trafficking". What you don't seem to understand is that this sort of science doesn't predict the flow of 100% of the guns. There will still be some guns that flow in the other direction, just like there will still be cold days even with global warming

He did not get the trace data directly from the ATF, he got it from MAIG, who may not have been honest with what they posted. Think Bloomburg would tell the world that NY is a major exporter (as is California)? That makes it suspect. That is my point. Nothing is 100 percent. Not name calling, and it is not competent research either. If he got the information from ATF or other law enforcement, I would see them as interesting exceptions. Given where he got his numbers, it really does not matter. More likely, AK and HI and the territories were not included in the Bloomburg press releases he used in his research, so he did not use them in the study.

Also, please read section 8: "Time-to-Crime Analysis". He finds a "strong and statistically signicant correlation between gun laws and time-to-crime", indicating that a higher fraction of the gun flow from weak law states is criminal trafficking (whereby guns move more quickly). It's funny what you learn by, umm, actually reading something before criticizing it, dont you think?

He says he found one, but does not say what it says, so details are really lacking and makes it really useless. Oh yeah, I did read it. I may have ignored this part

Following Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2010), we correlate an index of gun laws with
the fraction of recovered guns by source state that have a time-to-crime of less than two
years. As shown in Figure 2, the fraction of recovered guns with a short time-to-crime varies
from under 10 percent from guns originally purchased in New Jersey to 40 percent for guns
originally purchased in Missouri.
21 More importantly, there is a strong and statistically
signicant correlation between gun laws and time-to-crime. In terms of the magnitude of
this eect, these results suggest that states with the weakest laws have approximately 25
percent of guns with a short time-to-crime, whereas states with the strictest laws having
only 15 percent.

Using MAIG as a source instead of ATF or other law enforcement? That could be why I missed that, because it was not worth reading.

This is not a "we need more gun control" study, it is a study of gun flow. And, there are plenty of gun violence studies by criminologists (like Phil Cook, Jens Ludwig, Colin Loftin, Brian Wiersema, Frank Zimring, Anthony Braga, David McDowall, Martin Killias, etc.) just that you either don't know about them or are ignoring them all. But, since gun violence is interdisciplinary, you also get studies from economists and public health people.

It will become one whether he wants it to or not. The study will be used as propaganda to propose that very thing. I have read Cook and some of the others. Some I have not. Problem with Cook is that his results don't always match his conclusion. That is an entire essay on its own. At least he is better than some of the others. His studies are actually better than any of the Joyce sponsored writings you came up with yet. I'll see what I can find of the others.
Interdisciplinary yes, as long as each specialty works in the context of their own specialty. MDs playing amateur sociologist by having some undergrad walk around a gun show to count how many straw purchases he thinks he sees in 20 minutes. (If there is a gun show loophole, why straw purchase? But I digress)

I consider it important to understand something before trying to critique it. If you find that arrogant and patronizing, then we have a difference of opinion.

No, I consider avoiding valid questions with "you disagree because you are a rube and do not understand it" is arrogant and patronizing. You assume we do not understand it only because it disagrees with you. A equally good or better study you dislike is "crap churned out by an NRA propagandist at a lowly land grant school." That is not only arrogant patronizing, it is closed minded and elitist.
There is no legitimate reason for him to go to any advocacy group for raw data, and base everything on that. Yes gun rights activists are going to say Mr. Knight pulled this screed out of Mike Bloomburg's wallet. Critical thinkers who are agnostic on the issue, but takes the time to read it, will say the same thing. He would have more credibility (and a better product) if he filed a FOIA and got the information directly from ATF.

[DanTex]

32. You're joking, right?

The difference is that I also read the end notes and actually understood what I read. It reads more like a monograph than a study. You also ignored my main flaw I find in it.

Did you really understand the model of gun trafficking that he presented? Or did you just skip the "sciency" part and go straight for the character attacks on the author. Why is it that the "flaws" you find are never about anything remotely scientific or substantive, and always about how the author is biased and there's some conspiracy by Joyce and Brady.

Given the nature that the federal laws would affect the flow, yes it could. To illustrate, go to another state and go to any gun store and try to buy a handgun. See how long it takes for the dealer to explain to you that would be a federal crime to sell to you. Applies to private persons to, or gun "buy backs". (for example if a church in KC, MO is giving away Wal Mart gift cards, and you drive across the river from KC, KS to take advantage of it and get rid of a pistol that has been sitting around the house, you and the church committed a federal felony.)

Please pay attention. The point is that federal laws are uniform across states, so it would have no differential effect. Federal laws could reduce overall flow, but it would affect all states the same (obviously).

He did not get the trace data directly from the ATF, he got it from MAIG, who may not have been honest with what they posted. Think Bloomburg would tell the world that NY is a major exporter (as is California)? That makes it suspect. That is my point. Nothing is 100 percent. Not name calling, and it is not competent research either. If he got the information from ATF or other law enforcement, I would see them as interesting exceptions. Given where he got his numbers, it really does not matter. More likely, AK and HI and the territories were not included in the Bloomburg press releases he used in his research, so he did not use them in the study.

The data is from the ATF. MAIG just posted the numbers on the web. If you don't understand that, then I'm really wasting my time.

Also, if you can't understand that HI and AK are different from the rest of the US in terms of gun trafficking, then I'm wasting my time as well. Did you ever take geography?

He says he found one, but does not say what it says, so details are really lacking and makes it really useless. Oh yeah, I did read it. I may have ignored this part

What do you mean "does not say what it says"? I think the reason it's useless to you is because you don't really know what "statistically significant correlation" means. In fact, in general, a lot of your objections are due to background knowledge that you are lacking. The reason he doesn't explain things like this in gory detail is that most people reading the paper will know what this means, and the rest would go and look it up instead of insisting that it's some kind of omission on the part of the author. Also, take a look look at table 2...

It will become one whether he wants it to or not. The study will be used as propaganda to propose that very thing. I have read Cook and some of the others. Some I have not. Problem with Cook is that his results don't always match his conclusion. That is an entire essay on its own. At least he is better than some of the others. His studies are actually better than any of the Joyce sponsored writings you came up with yet. I'll see what I can find of the others.
Interdisciplinary yes, as long as each specialty works in the context of their own specialty. MDs playing amateur sociologist by having some undergrad walk around a gun show to count how many straw purchases he thinks he sees in 20 minutes. (If there is a gun show loophole, why straw purchase? But I digress)

Actually, the problem you have with Cook (and pretty much everyone else who does research on gun violence) is that his studies don't match your conclusions. In fact, that seems to be the reason why you don't read any of the research, except for the stuff by that guy who tells you what you already believe...

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. You are intellectually dishonest. You only cite *secondary* sources that you already agree with.

You even use tertiary sources when it suits you. For example:

The data is from the ATF. MAIG just posted the numbers on the web. If you don't understand that, then I'm really wasting my time.

IOW: The author of the publication got his numbers from MAIG, who claimed their source is the
the ATF. You cite the third-hand source instead of the primary.

We understand it all too well. Not once have you cited statistics from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports or its series of reports Crime in The United States. Instead, we get what amounts to "These well-credentialed people said guns are an increasing problem,
and those that don't agree are too stupid to understand the problem."

[gejohnston]

35. are you?

div class="excerpt"]Did you really understand the model of gun trafficking that he presented? Or did you just skip the "sciency" part and go straight for the character attacks on the author. Why is it that the "flaws" you find are never about anything remotely scientific or substantive, and always about how the author is biased and there's some conspiracy by Joyce and Brady.

[DanTex]

40. In other words, all you can come up with is "MAIG changed the data".

No intelligible criticism about the science or the statistics or the methodology or anything. Just the same old conspiracy theories, in this case suggesting that MAIG took the numbers the ATF gave them, and actually changed them around before passing them over to the economist who did this study.

Hey, man, whatever helps you keep that head firmly buried in that sand...

[gejohnston]

43. I am saying that if I were his teacher

I would give him an F for piss poor research. If I were his boss, I would be thinking WTF. Does not matter if MAIG gave the correct numbers or not, he failed to use primary sources. I don't give shit if he got them from the NRA, it was still laziness. If you need the area of a circle and mistakenly put the diameter as five feet instead of six feet, you will still get the wrong answer after even getting the formula right.
You are assuming MAIG used ATF number to begin with. ATF is not going to hand MAIG and only MAIG numbers, given how much MAIG pissed off the ATF. Care to check out how many MAIG members are convicted felons? So, MAIG being dishonest is not out of the realm of probability.

Recognizing his study builds on something done by MAIG, which has an agenda just like the Heritage Foundation has an agenda, that is not keeping head in the sand. That is impartial critical thinking free of ideology, something you don't seem to excell at.

[DanTex]

44. That's why you're not a teacher, and he's a professor at Brown.

You see, in the real scientific world, people care about the quality of the methods and the statistical analysis. In the gun militant world, people care about whatever they can come up with to maintain their ideological bias and deny the scientific evidence.

[TPaine7]

46. People who care

EXCLUSIVELY about the quality of the methods and the statistical analysis and care nothing about getting data from organizations teeming with felons shouldn't be teaching at Brown or at the local high school for that matter.

So what if a person who thinks the MAIG is a legitimate scientific source is a professor at Brown? He's still wrong.

You see, in the real scientific world, people care about the quality of the methods and the statistical analysis.

If "real scientists" think that sources don't matter, that the NRA is a legitimate source on gun rights, Phillip Morris is a reliable authority on the health effects of cigarettes and AT@T and Verizon are unbiased sources on the health effects of the electromagnetic fields of cell phones then "real scientists" are abject fools.

The sad thing is, I bet you would immediately accept that fact for each subject above and any other comparable subject, with the exception of guns as "studied" for the Joyce Foundation and MAIG and the like. I even bet you hold the exact same opinion regarding gun rights as "studied" by the NRA.

Why is it that when this logic is applied to the Joyce Foundation and MAIG there is this special exception, and the only thing that matters is the quality of the methods and the statistical analysis? And why, pray tell, do you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that using original, unbiased sources (or multiple sources, or sources "testifying" against their own interest) is a METHODOLOGICAL issue that goes directly to your "quality of the methods" statement and refutes your point?

[DanTex]

52. I don't think you really understand the scientific method.

The author makes it pretty clear what his methods are, and, given access to the data, any other skilled economist could perform the exact same analysis and get the exact same results. So, the only relevant question is, are those methods sound or not.

And this is precisely the question that neither you nor gejohnston and nor any other pro-gunner has been able to address. You are all so anxious to deny the science, and yet not a single one of you really understands it at all. So, in place of any intelligent discussion of the science, we get all this nonsense about MAIG.

I'll say it again. Unless MAIG actually altered the data, then it makes no difference to the validity of the study. And I think that is very unlikely.

[TPaine7]

53. And I don't think you understand the scientific method. You think it consists entirely of math.

The author makes it pretty clear what his methods are, and, given access to the data, any other skilled economist could perform the exact same analysis and get the exact same results.

It is quite possible that this is true. In fact, I will stipulate that guns flow from areas of liberal gun regulation to places of unconstitutional gun restriction. I will stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that the math is correct. That is well beside my point.

How is that for not denying the "science"?

However, I believe that using reliable sources is a tenet of science, and any vaguely reasonable person can see that advocacy groups are not reliable, unbiased sources. Failure to see that is a failure of SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. Anyone, from Brown, Harvard, Yale, Oxford, MIT, or anywhere else who uncritically cited Phillip Morris as an authority on the health effects of cigarettes (excepting, of course, an admission against interest like "even Phillip Morris admits that...") would be met with skepticism, and not just by me. You would be standing right beside me. You have two "scientific" faces.

You see my skepticism about MAIG as nonsense, yet you hold substantially identical views about the NRA. This is more than a failure to understand the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, it is a failure of character.

One last time--would you uncritically accept a source that cited the NRA thus?:

The tracing data used in this paper are based upon a study by the National Rifle Association (2010). Their key
finding is that {key finding of NRA study}.

We build upon this literature in several ways...

Yes or no.

If you lack the integrity to address this issue, your professed knowledge of statistics, science or any other subject is quite irrelevant to the trustworthiness of your assertions.

[DanTex]

55. So now you're telling me what I think about the scientific method.

Interesting. Anyway, wake me up when you have something substantive to say. The whining about MAIG doesn't impress me, sorry to say...

[gejohnston]

56. sleep tight

and not seeing the problem makes you an ideologue and a few other things. Open minded, critical thinker, scientific mind are not among them.

[TPaine7]

59. Yes, I am.

But I am only reflecting what you said yourself.

So pointing out relevant facts that reflect on a source's trustworthiness is whining?

:rofl:

If I cared enough, I would compile a list of your whining about the NRA. I'm sure I've read lots of it, much more vehement and gratuitous than anything I've said here.

Apparently, you will use any tactic whatsoever to avoid addressing the issue.

It's sad to see your character so clearly. I thought you were the real deal, an honest, intelligent, relatively informed anti gun zealot. The way you scurry away from the NRA/MAIG comparison destroys the honesty leg of the worthy opponent stool.

Oh well, the illusion was nice while it lasted.

[iverglas]

66. my question on this point was

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=475717&mesg_id=475886

iverglas Donating Member
Wed Nov-02-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #47

48. how about the ATF?

It's their data that's claimed as the source.

Do you imagine the ATF is unaware of this publication? After what had to be gone through to get the data?

(Thanks for that info, by the way. I wasn't aware that the Tiahrt crap had been successfully eroded to that extent. Congratulations to the neighbours.)

Here's what the document says at p. 31:

(http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_the_guns_report.pdf)

Sources of Data

This analysis uses the most up-to-date ATF aggregate trace data available. Aggregated ATF trace data identify the state where the traced gun was first sold at retail (the “source state”), and the state where the traced gun was recovered at a crime scene (the “recovery state”). The aggregated ATF data examined in this analysis was taken from two different sources: (1) data published by ATF on its website on April 14, 2010 and (2) data provided by ATF to Mayors Against Illegal Guns on March 4, 2010 in response to a request submitted in January 2009.

The data set published by ATF on April 14, 2010 was extracted from its Firearms Tracing System database on March 9, 2010 and summarizes the total number of crime guns recovered and traced in each state and the District of Columbia, and the number of recovered crime guns originating from the top-15 source states. The data set provided to Mayors Against Illegal Guns on March 4, 2010 was extracted from the Firearms Tracing System database on February 23, 2010 and summarizes for each recovery state the number of guns recovered from all source states from 2006 to 2009.

Increased Data Precision

This report relies on source state and recovery state data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This information enabled a more complete analysis of interstate crime gun trafficking patterns than was used in the 2008 Mayors Against Illegal Guns report, The Movement of Illegal Guns in America. The 2008 report relied on data published by ATF that identified only the top-15 source states for crime guns recovered in a particular state. This year, ATF provided to Mayors Against Illegal Guns data detailing the number of crime guns recovered in a particular state and originating from each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. See footnote eight for additional information as to how this improved the analysis of this report.65

So I'm like totally unable to take your point:
Citing a 'study' where they have yet to produce the raw data?

The study they cite is the study they did, do I have this right?

And the raw data was supplied by the ATF. I may be understanding that it is supplied only to "state and local law enforcement". I suppose I could spend my time googling to find out what restrictions might be placed on the use of the data.

Since you're the one alleging misuse and/or misrepresentation of the data, and yes you are, you're the one who should be doing that, I think.

If the ATF does not allow (is not allowed to allow) release of the data, you'd be wanting to retract a little, I think.

And in any event you'd be wanting to explain why the ATF (or anybody else) doesn't seem to have raised any hue and cry about any misuse/misrepresentation, as I would certainly expect someone to do were that the case.

[gejohnston]

54. denying science has nothing to do with it

Unlikely MAIG altered at data? Who knows. Given that the number of convicted felons, for things like corruption, extortion, and even a pedophile what do you think? Does that fact that MAIG got in trouble with the ATF for their James O'Keefe stunts?
Do you think the NRA would alter it? You can think it is very unlikely. If Mr. Knight had gone to the ATF, it would not be a question.

The fact that he went to a questionable source for the data makes the whole study questionable. That is why I do not address it, because it does not matter. If I were an equally skilled economist, I would go to the ATF just to see the results would be. We are not denying science, you are denying critical thinking. If you don't get that, I question your ability to understand the process. Sorry, MAIG is part of the intelligent discussion of the science. It is about the integrity of the data. Without that, the rest doesn't matter.

So please, please explain in layman's terms the methods and how sound you think they are or not. Will waiting.

[DanTex]

57. Denying science has everything to do with it.

If you think MAIG altered the data, well then that's what you think.

If you had even once in all these threads about science made an intelligent point about the actual substance of any of the studies you claim to have read, you might have a bit more credibility. But, like most pro-gunners, all you are able to do is whine about Brady and MAIG and Joyce and how ivory tower intellectuals are biased against guns etc. This thread is no different. So, like I told TPaine, wake me up when you finally come up with a comment about the actual science.

[gejohnston]

58. I do believe I and others have

several intelligent points about all of these studies, it is simply that you refuse to do the same. Your counters repeat what the person said but you never put it in your own words. You never explain why, other than "you are fucking stupid" After awhile you banter about we illiterates not knowing what we are taking about. If you actually discussed it on a semi reasonable level, you would have credibility. If you actually explained your position in your words would give you credibly. Your inability to do so, and the pro gun equals climate change denier canard says more about you than about us.

Whine? You antis whine about the NRA, no grassroots support because the NRA is holding a gun to everyone. Sorry, your Joyce employees may or may not be ivory tower, but they are intellectuals.

I think MAIG never bothered to look up any ATF statistic, they have been regurgitated talking points that have been around since the 1970s.
and while it is true that any skilled economist should be able to use his methods and get the same results. Any half way intelligent and open minded economist would as the same question I did before he or she started, "WTF did he get his numbers from those guys for?"

[gejohnston]

48. You see

not a teacher?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You don't know shit about me. You assume a lot. Think you know a lot. That is the best you can do? Insult me and play the appeal to authority card? That means, you don't have anything left. In the real academic world, accuracy, using primary sources, and not adding on to a propaganda study by an advocacy group is the very definition of integrity. Does the name Michael A. Bellesiles ring a bell? If I have the time, I'll look closer at the methods and analysis. If you want to call adding on to something MAIG did methods.

Based on your user name, I am guessing you are from Texas. Using secondary sources instead of primary sources might pass as high-fluent science down there in Rick Perry land, but in these parts, we call that something else. Kind of reminds me of when I was a young-un, the teacher at the one room school next to the oak grove made us older kids write a research paper. I wrote mine on how vegan diets were bad for you and the environment. I wrote it up because I knew everything I already knew it all, but had to cite sources. But that meant going to the library or getting on the internets reading nutritional books and such. That would take away my fishn time, and I really wanted to take my girlfriend Charlene to the rodeo and gun show. Charlene was county champion barrel racer and a crack shot. Pert'neer the best frog gigger for miles around too. As luck would have it, the cattleman's association had a place next to the feed store, so I went in and asked for information and they gave me all kinds of stuff I could use for sources. After I dropped Charlene off at home, I went right to work. Typed in those pamphlet tites those ranchers gave me in the end notes. Even made sure my spelling was all purdy and stuff. Turned it in. She gave me a F, told me to do it over with unbiased sources, and had to bring it back with Ma's and Pa's signature. Don't know what that meant, but my pappa was a smart man for only going to the sixth grade. I showed it to him, and asked him what unbiased sources meant. He explained real good. I asked why what I had was not unbiased and what was it. He said son, "Son, that shit you turned in as your sources is just fucking propaganda. Now go wash up for supper, the whole grain pasta is getting cold I've been hankering for granola and general store finally got some in."

So please explain how using a secondary source (and calling MAIG a legitimate study, please) is good methodology? That fact alone says a lot. I'll look at the rest when I get time. I hope they are not as bad as what I found on the surface.
So, please explain in layman's terms how his model works and why it is a good one. Do it in your own words. If you understand it as well as you claim, you should be able to.

[TPaine7]

51. Great stuff, gejohnston. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. That's an argument from authority. The fact remains, he cited a secondary source.

Why did he not quote the ATF directly, rather than an interpretation by a third party?

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. And that secondary source (MAIG) did *not* provide the original ATF data

See for yourself. Nowhere is there a link to the raw data (*.pdf file):

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_the_guns_report.pdf

[TPaine7]

27. How do you know this is a "pretty nice study"?

Did you pay to read it? Did you read it for free? Or did you just recognize that it tends to support your views?

The cited article reeks of bias, but at least it's honest about intent:

The 10 Gun Laws (Mayors Against Illegal Guns Index)
Here are the 10 common laws that are aimed at making it more difficult for people to buy guns from a dealer:

I love it when anti-gun fanatics tip their hand. The point isn't merely to keep guns from the unfit, by, for instance, requiring background checks for all sales—no, they want it harder for PEOPLE to buy from a source that is required by federal law to conduct checks on everyone. That's PEOPLE, not felons, minors or otherwise unfit persons. Blomberg, his felonious associates, the author of the article and presumably the author of the "pretty nice study" want to make it more difficult for people to exercise their constitutional rights.

These thugs, many of whom are actually convicts and many of whom enjoy armed protection at taxpayer expense, have the temerity to work to deprive sane, law-abiding, honest adult Americans of their constitutional rights.

Straw Purchase Liability: A “straw purchase,” purchasing a gun on behalf of somebody else, is a federal crime. Some regions have passed laws allowing for the local policing and prosecution of straw purchasers.

Falsifying Purchaser Information Liability: It is a felony under federal law to provide false information when purchasing a gun. Some states allow for local prosecution of offenders.

Background Check Failure Liability: A dealer who fails to conduct a background check has committed a misdemeanor under federal law. Some states allow for prosecution and incarceration of these offenders.

I actually favor cracking down on straw purchasing. I favor regulations to stop straw purchasing that 1) do not identify to government who has what gun, 2) do not add to the expense of guns 3) are not intended to make it more difficult for legally entitled people to purchase guns.

Gun Show Checks: Infrequent sellers of firearms are not required to be licensed under federal law. Several states have attempted to close this “gun show loophole” with a variety of restrictions on casual gun merchants.

I don't trust the people who are behind this, and statistics show that very few crime guns come from gun shows. I've never been to one, but I hear that gun shows are crawling with cops—not exactly the atmosphere that makes felons comfortable.

Required Purchaser Permit: Several states require that all prospective gun purchasers acquire a permit, regardless of whether the dealer has a federal firearms license. This often includes a background check.

This doesn't sound like too bad an idea, except that a "permit" from the government to exercise a fundamental right tends to stick in my craw. Perhaps the best approach is to establish a system whereby a person can prove that before they sold a gun to a stranger, they saw a proof of eligibility card. This would show good faith in court and remove them from suspicion of illegal gun dealing. It would not be a crime to sell a gun to a relative or close friend who you knew was a sane, adult non-felon but who didn't have the card.

Local Discretion to Deny Carry Permits: Concealed carry permits are available in every state except Illinois and Wisconsin. Some states allow local law enforcement discretion to deny carry permits, even if an individual meets the state and federal requirements.

These fascist thugs do everything they can to stop ordinary people from exercising the rights they allow billionaires, political contributers, friends, notables and well connected folks to exercise. They despise not only the principles of the Second Amendment but the principles of the Fourteenth. Equal protection of the law is a silly, naive notion to these thugs.

Misdemeanor Restrictions: Federal law prohibits gun ownership by individuals convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors. Some states extend the restriction to individuals found guilty of other violent misdemeanors.

Required Reporting of Lost Or Stolen Guns: Some states require that lost or stolen guns are reported.

Local Discretion over Gun Regulations: Eight states currently allow municipalities, cities, and countries authority to enact gun control and regulation.

Dealer Inspections by State: The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has inspection authority over licensed firearms dealers, but some states supplement these inspections by allowing or requiring their own.

In the hands of rational people with loyalty to the Constitution, these might not be bad tools to fight crime. In the hands of a criminal organization drunk with power and rabidly opposed to the supreme law of the land, these are just another way of making it harder for people legally entitled to keep and bear arms to do so.

[DanTex]

29. I know it's pretty nice because I read it...

http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Brian_Knight/guns4.pdf

[TPaine7]

33. Thanks for the link. I am reading it myself now.

I will give this working paper credit for at least being authored by someone with relevant expertise. The subject appears to be economics and it is written by an economist.

However, as gejohnston has pointed out already, there is a major red flag:

The tracing data used in this paper are based upon a study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2010). Their key
finding is that states with weak gun laws tend to export more guns than states with stricter gun laws.

We build upon this literature in several ways...

Source: study page 5

Testing a claim by an advocacy group, pro or con, is one thing. Using an advocacy group's "study" or "data" as an authoritative source is quite another.

I have never in my life cited a study conducted by the NRA. I would not cite a study that I knew was funded by the NRA or based on data collected by the NRA. I respect the people I am debating too much.

Why do anti-gun researchers and anti-gun people in general insist on insulting our intelligence? Why pretend that a "study" by MAIG—a higly biased antigun group with a very high proportion of felons relative to the general population—is a legitimate source of scientific information?

Why do you insist on insulting us?

[DanTex]

38. And as I pointed out, the data actually comes from the ATF gun traces.

So unless you are suggesting that MAIG took the ATF data and actually changed around the numbers (are you?), then this point is pretty much irrelevant.

[TPaine7]

41. I am not talking about "data"

The tracing data used in this paper are based upon a study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2010). Their key
finding is that states with weak gun laws tend to export more guns than states with stricter gun laws.

We build upon this literature in several ways...

Source: study page 5

Study. Finding. Literature. Those are very strange words to use to talk about columns of numbers and graphs and the like. That is a very strange way of saying that "we used ATF data as reported by MAIG."

Let me be as clear as possible:

1. It seems that this paper is saying something much more significant than you are
   
2. Even assuming that your account is true and complete, a scholar who uncritically cites an MAIG "study" is hopelessly biased, as I feel sure you would agree a scholar who uncritically cited an NRA "study" was biased. Just the idea of citing the NRA as authority would disqualify the paper from serious consideration. And you would be one of the first in line to condemn it, IMO.
   
3. I don't trust groups crawling with felons who want to restrict the gun rights of people with pristine records.
   
4. I don't trust people who drive around at taxpayer expense in bullet proof limousines with 24 hr armed guards who want to keep ordinary people from having the tools to protect themselves and their families.
   

I am almost tempted to cite an NRA "study" or a scholar claiming to rely on NRA studies, findings or literature AS AUTHORITY. But I already am very, very sure of your response, and it's hardly worth the effort since you won't even bother to refute my premise.

I'll put it to you plainly: Would you accept an NRA study, NRA findings or NRA "scientific" literature as authoritative on the subject of gun rights? That is equivalent to what this paper purports to do. Would you accept that a scholar who uncritically cited the NRA as authority on gun rights was unbiased and worth of having his scholarship respected? That is equivalent to what this scholar did.

[DanTex]

45. The data are from the ATF, and the methods are his own.

First off, when he says "we build on this literature in several ways", that is referring to all of the literature he just mentioned in the "Related Literature" section. If you read academic papers, you'll find that this is a very common pattern: someone surveys related literature, and then there's a sentence like "We build upon this literature in various ways". That may be one of the most common sentences in all of academic literature.

He's citing MAIG, because they did a similar study earlier, and because he's using the same data set. Whatever you think of MAIG, it is difficult to argue that he shouldn't cite them as previous related work, because it's obviously previous related work. If you read the paper, he explains very clearly what his methods are, what kind of model he builds, how he fits the data to it, etc., and none of it is taken from MAIG. Except for the tracing data, which originally came from the ATF. Yes, maybe MAIG changed the data before passing it on. That's true.

Anyway, what you think about MAIG matters not at all to me. I am interested in the actual substantive part of the study, you know, whether the model he proposes makes sense, whether he's using reasonable methods, etc. Just like gejohnston, you have this habit of focusing on any possible thing you can think of except for the content -- and usually what you can think of is some usually kind of conspiracy by Brady and Joyce and Bloomberg. I can only assume this is because either you aren't able to understand the content, or you do understand it, you realize it is scientifically quite solid, and you don't like the implications.

[TPaine7]

47. I notice that you didn't answer any of the questions I asked.

Would it be fair to conclude that you will never answer any question regarding your trust in a study that turned the tables and cited the NRA? Is it because you can't understand the inherent fairness of reversing a situation in this manner, or because you don't like the implications of an honest answer?

And you should look that word conspiracy up. Lying is not conspiracy. And I didn't even accuse the MAIG of lying, I just said I don't trust them. Just like you don't trust Phillip Morris, the NRA and other people with vested interests in what they purport to study.

[TPaine7]

50. What I think about MAIG shouldn't matter to you. You are correct on that point.

The FACTS about MAIG are another matter altogether.

1. The are an advocacy group on the subject under "study."
   
2. They are crawling with CONVICTED felons.
   

Do you care about facts and reality that aren't expressed in mathematical symbols? You should.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Diatribe Flow From mikeb302000

[ileus]

14. Where does your state rank in the little mab on that page?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

26. I hope you copy -pasted all that

[gravity556]

39. I hadn't, but I did now.

Glad to hear someone appreciates my work. ;)

[iverglas]

67. good thing ...

[ileus]

31. POTT...

That my friend earns you the Post of the Thread award.

[ileus]

60. I'm thinking about flowing one from WV to VA in a few weeks...

[gejohnston]

61. my son is still hoping to flow

a semi-auto Tavor from Canada to here.

[ileus]

63. a friend of mine tried to flow one into canaDa last year.

Cost him big time even though it was disassembled and non functional.

[iverglas]

69. is your friend an idiot?

Just curious.

[ileus]

70. He lost 8000 bucks so I'm gonna say yeah, he's an idiot.

I've been on the receiving end of a full search once because I used the wrong words to describe my sales trip. :( LOL

I don't know how you forget you have a firearm in the vehicle but that was the case. No oops I forgot that was there excuse for him...

[iverglas]

71. try telling customs you crossed the border for lunch

Well, it's probably best if you don't start out by answering "how long have you been out of the country" with "three hours, an hour of which was sitting in line here" and a scowl.

Took an alternate route one day because I was so tired of the boring 401 in the Montreal-Toronto corridor. Stopped for lunch on the NY state side, crossed back. Supposed to meet my brother in the city for a movie that night.

What was the purpose of your visit? To have lunch.
Did you buy anything while you were gone? Yes, lunch.
Are you bringing anything back with you? No, I ate it.
Are you bringing in any business samples blah blah? Uh ... (follow my gaze to the back seat)

Driving a little pre-Samurai Suzuki, you look inside, what you see in those 4 cubic feet is what you get: a briefcase, a jacket and a change of clothes on a hanger for the meeting next day. I got sent for secondary search. That guy walked around, looked in all the windows, bent over and looked underneath, gave me a puzzled look, I shrugged, he sent me away.

Anyhow. Guns are smuggled into Canada one by one at the Ontario and Quebec crossings, by truckers in particular, apart from organized shipments through Akwesasne or such. Yup, no "I forgot it was there" is going to hold the least water at the border, I'm afraid. I don't know your friend, but I might not take that at face value myself.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. So, let's get this straight, you are posting, in apparently positive light, a researcher that is ok

with national reciprocity, for instance?

Lawl