The Myth of Big-Time Gun Trafficking

[JohnRich 4]

Wall Street Journal:

The Myth of Big-Time Gun Trafficking

In recent decades, advocates of gun control have taken their cause to court, bringing lawsuits that charge the gun industry with negligence because of how it distributes firearms. Large-scale traffickers, these suits claim, purchase guns in big batches from corrupt or irresponsible dealers, especially those operating in states with weak gun control laws. These guns are then moved to places with stricter laws, where they are sold, supposedly at high markups, to criminal buyers.

Advocates argue that gun manufacturers and distributors are aware of these illegal practices and could stop them, if they chose to, by refusing to supply guns to the problematic dealers.

This theory has been embraced by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and even some scholars. They argue that disrupting trafficking operations can have a substantial impact on rates of criminal gun possession and gun violence.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence to support this set of interconnected claims...

Full story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704904604576333443343499926.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[futuredivot 0]

Hey!!! Let's not let reality get in the way of agendas.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 4]

And article in the WSJ by Gary Kleck supporting the gun industry.

Wow, shocking.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

And article in the WSJ by Gary Kleck supporting the gun industry.

Wow, shocking.

Cant post to the content, AGAIN, can you!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

  Quote

  Quote

And article in the WSJ by Gary Kleck supporting the gun industry.
Wow, shocking.

Cant post to the content, AGAIN, can you!

I was. The medium is the message.

Pity you can't understand it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

And article in the WSJ by Gary Kleck supporting the gun industry.

Wow, shocking.

Cant post to the content, AGAIN, can you!

I was. The medium is the message.

Pity you can't understand it.

Oh I see it alright
You cant argue the content so you work to reframe the debate
Sad really

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

It's a biased article, by a biased author in a biased publication.

I'm not reframing anything. I'm making a statement of fact.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

It's a biased article, by a biased author in a biased publication.

I'm not reframing anything. I'm making a statement of fact.

Ok
Then what was in the article that was factully incorrect?

Or
Where is the flawed reaoning based on the facts or information presented

And you are reframing the debate

You changed it to the author

If he is so bad then you should have no trouble refuting the main point in the articel

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

  Quote

  Quote

It's a biased article, by a biased author in a biased publication.
I'm not reframing anything. I'm making a statement of fact.

Ok
Then what was in the article that was factully incorrect?

It starts right with the headline and the premise of the piece.

  Quote

The Myth of Big-Time Gun Trafficking
Crime weapons usually come from petty theft and opportunistic dealers, not from an organized black market

It presupposes that most people, including those in authority, believe there is a vast and organized black market in guns. The article then sets out to "prove" them wrong by saying there's no evidence to suggest this is the case. In doing so, it gives the impression that if the authorities are wrong about this issue, then clearly they don't know what they're talking about at all.

The thing is though, the article doesn't show where the authorities have said there is "Big-Time Gun Trafficking" by "an organized black market." It simply gives the impression it has.

Kleck is a hack for the gun industry. There is NO question about it at all. It's all he does.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports laws limiting the bulk purchase of handguns in order to thwart gun trafficking and help keep guns out of the criminal market.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/trafficking/bulksales

That search took about 4 seconds while my expense report was printing

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

Kleck is a hack for the gun industry. There is NO question about it at all. It's all he does.

Translation: "Kleck's research is so rock solid that he makes gun-control folks look bad, so we hate him and call him names."

Item 1:

Professor Kleck included an "Author's Voluntary Disclosure Notice" in his previous book ("Point Blank. Guns and Violence in America"):

"The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union,Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic political candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc., or any other advocacy group on either side of the gun control issue, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization."

Item 2:

Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang -- undeniably one of the foremost criminologists in the world -- pays tribute Kleck's research. Wolfgang, a devoted gun control advocate, says the following about the Kleck research:

"I am as strong a gun control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research..."

"Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive
measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence..."

"The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

The British Journal of Criminology calls Wolfgang "the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world." And he praises Kleck's research!

Wolfgang: http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v44/n30/deaths.html

Wolfgang's tribute to Kleck: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.html

[quade 4]

You're talking about the past.

"Point Blank. Guns and Violence in America" was written in 1991.
Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang died in 1998

Tell me what Kleck has been doing for the last 10 years?

Can you cite a single recent article by Kleck that isn't pro-gun?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

It's a biased article, by a biased author in a biased publication.

I'm not reframing anything. I'm making a statement of fact.

Uh, at best you might make that claim for the middle part - Kleck certainly is associated with writings supporting defensive gun use. Claiming the Wall Street Journal is a biased publication as a statement of fact gets you nowhere. Claiming the article is biased based on the editor written headline is equally daft.

BTW, the article's lead paragraph is the part you should address, not the headline description.

***
In recent decades, advocates of gun control have taken their cause to court, bringing lawsuits that charge the gun industry with negligence because of how it distributes firearms. Large-scale traffickers, these suits claim, purchase guns in big batches from corrupt or irresponsible dealers, especially those operating in states with weak gun control laws. These guns are then moved to places with stricter laws, where they are sold, supposedly at high markups, to criminal buyers. ***

I certainly can recall this litigation, and their transparent motivation (death by 1000 cuts) back when the Democrats still wanted to touch the issue (pre Nov 2000).

[kallend 2,106]

It's a shame that Kleck's results are so completely at variance with the US Department of Justice's data based on ACTUAL police reports rather than hearsay.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

  Quote

Claiming the Wall Street Journal is a biased publication as a statement of fact gets you nowhere.

Are you suggesting the WSJ isn't pro-business? Guns ARE big business.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

btw, the correct way to critique the article in the WSJ is to note that it was published in the Life and Culture section. Others here have promoted articles like gospel that came out of the Opinion section. Obviously both pale next to the News section.

These days, newspapers seem content to take outside submissions for the light weight sections as filler, with little consideration to the objectivity. I read last night an article in the LA Times claiming that consensus is now swinging to a conclusion that it is carbs that are making us fat. The primary citation came from the new head of the Atkins group. (snicker)

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

  Quote

Claiming the Wall Street Journal is a biased publication as a statement of fact gets you nowhere.

Are you suggesting the WSJ isn't pro-business? Guns ARE big business.

prove it. I last purchased a gun in 2003. Lifetime spending is less than half the cost of either of my two vacations this year. Compare that with the amount people spend annually on truly big business, like cars, tobacco, alcohol, video games, etc.

The entire civilian gun industry is on par with a single office supply chain. The police and military side can be bigger, if you're the chosen provider, but even then, these are durable goods.

The WSJ is marginally more biased than the NYT. If you reject either, then you're really limited to first order data that you observe yourself.

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

Can you cite a single recent article by Kleck that isn't pro-gun?

If that's where the facts lead, then it isn't bias.

[quade 4]

  Quote

  Quote

Can you cite a single recent article by Kleck that isn't pro-gun?

If that's where the facts lead, then it isn't bias.

Oh please.

It certainly is if the only "facts" he chooses to write about are pro-gun.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Can you cite a single recent article by Kleck that isn't pro-gun?

If that's where the facts lead, then it isn't bias.

Oh please.

It certainly is if the only "facts" he chooses to write about are pro-gun.

I can't think of any academics who feel the need to occasionally publish something that disagrees with their prior arguments, just for the sake of "objectivity." Did Gandhi ever say 'sometimes a good ass kicking will solve a problem?'

BTW, Kleck maintains that when he started his research, his expectation was that the conclusion would be that gun ownership is a negative result.

[quade 4]

  Quote

Did Gandhi ever say 'sometimes a good ass kicking will solve a problem?'

Perhaps not, but then again, I don't see anyone claiming he was unbiased in his opinion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

you're equating "biased" with "incorrect". So, in this case, your bias is making you incorrect...but they are two different things

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

It certainly is if the only "facts" he chooses to write about are pro-gun.

If the only thing some climate researchers write about is global warming, does that automatically mean that they are biased? If the only thing some health care researchers write about is the harmful effects of smoking, does that mean that they are biased? Is any researcher who specializes in one area of study, therefore biased?

Really, I don't think you want to use that as a standard of objectivity for science. Because if you do, then it cuts both ways. There are some researchers in the pockets of the anti-gun organizations that always publish anti-gun findings. So by your reasoning, their findings are biased and invalid - correct?

If you disagree with Kleck's findings, then try and refute them with facts. Name-calling doesn't count for squat in science.

[Bertt 0]

1) The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, same guy who owns Fox News. That's fact, draw your own conclusions.
2) Recently I saw a picture of weapons taken from some Mexican drug gang. The weapons included M-16s with 40mm grenade launchers attached, 40mm grenades, hand grenades with the handles taped down - you know, the stuff every pawn shop in Texas carries.

Just a couple of observations. Carry on.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

1) The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, same guy who owns Fox News. That's fact, draw your own conclusions.

Which means nothing. Any suggestion that every article ever published in the Wall Street Journal is biased rubbish, simply because of who owns it, is wrong.

  Quote

2) Recently I saw a picture of weapons taken from some Mexican drug gang. The weapons included M-16s with 40mm grenade launchers attached, 40mm grenades, hand grenades with the handles taped down - you know, the stuff every pawn shop in Texas carries.

Right, and those grenade items aren't generally sold in pawn shops, not even in Texas. The mexican drug gangs get 'em by stealing them from their own army, or from other central American countries. Very few of them are coming from America, but you wouldn't know that from watching the news.

Judge a story by the facts, not by who owns the paper, or who wrote the article.