Study on where DC criminals source illegal guns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ LOL at the multiple references to research and data. This isn't science, nor is it some kind of linear algebra equation.

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't care about science, research, or data, which is why debating you is useless. It's like debating a conspiracy theorist. No point. Waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most gun crimes are committed by a small number of people who’ve been arrested a million times. Instead of fruitlessly complaining about what other states are doing, we could just convict the bad guys, put them in jail and (here’s the crazy part) leave them in jail. Google people on trial in DC. Their rap sheets are astounding.

I follow the police experts and research rather than random folks posting on DCUM.

You don’t - you just cherry pick selected evidence that already accords with your opinion.

Trying to control gun crime by reducing supply instead of punishing people who illegally carry/use guns is a fools errand that doesn’t pass the common sense test. There are almost 400 million firearms estimated to be circulating in the US, with almost 10 million more being added to the supply each year. We don’t have walls or checkpoints around American states and cities which allow us to search all the vehicles going in and out. You aren’t going to stop circulation of guns in this country. It’s fine to try to crack down on straw purchases, I favor it, but to think it will be anywhere close to as effective as cracking down on illegal users of guns is foolish.

Actually what I support the most is extension of blue state laws at a federal level. It would cut gun crime across the US efficiently (again because it's clear sensible gun legislation works when criminals and even Mexican drug cartels turn to certain specific US states for guns because they can't get them locally because of more stringent laws). Sadly, I don't see it happening in the near future, but I believe future generations will get it done, perhaps in 10-15 years with population trends. That's a separate thread for the political forum.

FWIW saying I believe this does not mean I believe police should be defunded or violent criminals shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed which is clearly a current, local problem. However I do feel the straw purchase issue gets sidelined and ignored when it's multiple pieces to a problem to be addressed.

Exactly. Criminals, gunrunners and cartels will seek out the weakest link where it comes to sourcing guns - and that is going to be whichever state has the weakest, most lax gun laws (invariably red states).

The cartels bring millions of pounds of drugs and bus loads of human beings into the US every year. Do you honestly believe that “sensible” gun laws (hundreds of which already exist without even a ding against criminal behavior) will stop them from acquiring (or even manufacturing) firearms somewhere else (say, Central America, the Mid-East, and other war-torn places, not to mention countries that are happy to see the US embroiled in stride) and then importing them into a vast waiting market among the criminal underworld in the US? “Sensible” laws against interstate sales, against straw purchases, against possession by felons, and against the criminal misuse of firearms already exist at both the federal and state levels. They clearly don’t solve the problem. Because the problem isn’t inanimate objects you have an unreasoning fear of, grounded in your fear of your own unacknowkedged interior rage and violence. It’s criminals. Deal with the criminals and the problem goes away.

Q. If sensible gun laws don't work, why do local criminals source guns far away from red states to get guns?

A. Because local gun laws work.

See research by Baltimore law enforcement that found that if local states added sensible gun laws, Baltimore homicides would drop by 25%.

Backing the blue means not just funding them, but LISTENING TO THEM.

Crime predictably follows the path of least resistance. But “sensibly” attempting to close off one avenue by trammeling the rights of the overwhelming percentage of people doesn’t work because the criminal market, like all markets, adapts, and very quickly. Japan is an island with a centuries old anti weapons culture imposed by despots to secure their hold on power. Criminals still get all the guns they want. And nut jobs with political delusions make their own very effective firearms as the recent murder of a former prime minister demonstrates. Prosecute criminals, not objects.

Sensible gun laws already exist in some blue states but not many red states. Sensible gun laws don't stop high gun ownership in Switzerland. I'm NOT saying don't prosecute criminals, I'm saying we make it easy for criminals then complain that we have criminals. We wouldn't have to prosecute for as much crime if we made it more difficult to commit in the first place.

Again, you're ignoring the actual data and research that has already showed impact of sensible gun laws on crime. Respond with data, not anecdotes and opinions.

People in Switzerland routinely keep government-issued, fully automatic, actual military assault rifles in their homes along with government issued high capacity magazines and high powered anti-personnel ammunition.

Amazingly, these firearms are not misused.

I guess it’s the “sensible” laws. Couldn’t be anything else.

There are in fact many, many instances of mass shootings and murders in Switzerland that are committed with these govt issued machineguns. But the Swiss govt keeps them from being reported in the press, so no one hears about it. This policy is encouraged by the American gun lobby and NRA, who are the primary weapons suppliers to Switzerland. But dumb rednecks like you don’t know this because Switzerland doesn’t have a first amendment and a free press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most gun crimes are committed by a small number of people who’ve been arrested a million times. Instead of fruitlessly complaining about what other states are doing, we could just convict the bad guys, put them in jail and (here’s the crazy part) leave them in jail. Google people on trial in DC. Their rap sheets are astounding.

I follow the police experts and research rather than random folks posting on DCUM.

You don’t - you just cherry pick selected evidence that already accords with your opinion.

Trying to control gun crime by reducing supply instead of punishing people who illegally carry/use guns is a fools errand that doesn’t pass the common sense test. There are almost 400 million firearms estimated to be circulating in the US, with almost 10 million more being added to the supply each year. We don’t have walls or checkpoints around American states and cities which allow us to search all the vehicles going in and out. You aren’t going to stop circulation of guns in this country. It’s fine to try to crack down on straw purchases, I favor it, but to think it will be anywhere close to as effective as cracking down on illegal users of guns is foolish.

Actually what I support the most is extension of blue state laws at a federal level. It would cut gun crime across the US efficiently (again because it's clear sensible gun legislation works when criminals and even Mexican drug cartels turn to certain specific US states for guns because they can't get them locally because of more stringent laws). Sadly, I don't see it happening in the near future, but I believe future generations will get it done, perhaps in 10-15 years with population trends. That's a separate thread for the political forum.

FWIW saying I believe this does not mean I believe police should be defunded or violent criminals shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed which is clearly a current, local problem. However I do feel the straw purchase issue gets sidelined and ignored when it's multiple pieces to a problem to be addressed.

Exactly. Criminals, gunrunners and cartels will seek out the weakest link where it comes to sourcing guns - and that is going to be whichever state has the weakest, most lax gun laws (invariably red states).

The cartels bring millions of pounds of drugs and bus loads of human beings into the US every year. Do you honestly believe that “sensible” gun laws (hundreds of which already exist without even a ding against criminal behavior) will stop them from acquiring (or even manufacturing) firearms somewhere else (say, Central America, the Mid-East, and other war-torn places, not to mention countries that are happy to see the US embroiled in stride) and then importing them into a vast waiting market among the criminal underworld in the US? “Sensible” laws against interstate sales, against straw purchases, against possession by felons, and against the criminal misuse of firearms already exist at both the federal and state levels. They clearly don’t solve the problem. Because the problem isn’t inanimate objects you have an unreasoning fear of, grounded in your fear of your own unacknowkedged interior rage and violence. It’s criminals. Deal with the criminals and the problem goes away.

I don’t really GAF about trying to stop criminals from getting guns. That’s impossible for reasons you’ve just outlined. Congratulations - you’ve managed to point out the obvious. Bravo

What I care a LOT about, is getting guns away from the 90 million people like YOU. Not a few million criminals. Because you people are a far greater threat to this country than a few million gang members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ LOL at the multiple references to research and data. This isn't science, nor is it some kind of linear algebra equation.

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't care about science, research, or data, which is why debating you is useless. It's like debating a conspiracy theorist. No point. Waste of time.

I'm not the pp, but it's not science and you don't know as much as you think you know. There are a lot of variables at play when it comes to violent crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, I was told that crime is vastly overrated as an issue and doesn’t actually happen to hardly anyone. Now I’m supposed to care about crime when we relabel it “gun violence”? Then I’m supposed to care? And I’m not supposed to blame people here for it, including our politicians? I’m supposed to blame politicians somewhere else? The ones who live 1,000 miles away? So confusing.

Yes. You’ve grasped several salient points.

It’s just too bad you’re too stupid to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ LOL at the multiple references to research and data. This isn't science, nor is it some kind of linear algebra equation.

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't care about science, research, or data, which is why debating you is useless. It's like debating a conspiracy theorist. No point. Waste of time.

I'm not the pp, but it's not science and you don't know as much as you think you know. There are a lot of variables at play when it comes to violent crime.

No, there really aren’t any variables at all when it comes to violent crime. Just guns. That’s it. No guns, no widespread violent crime. Easy peasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What difference does it make where the guns come from? This is like worrying about which countries ship narcotics into the us. If it doesn’t come from one place, it will come from another.

Because the weakest link in the chain is where everything breaks. And your red states with the weakest laws are where the majority of criminal guns come from.

Seems like the bigger issue is Washingtonians shooting other Washingtonians usually over inconsequential things. Maybe deal with that rather than pointlessly shaking your fist at some politician in Indiana

If people in Indiana didn’t have guns, then people in DC wouldn’t be able to shoot each other over inconsequential things, dumbass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What difference does it make where the guns come from? This is like worrying about which countries ship narcotics into the us. If it doesn’t come from one place, it will come from another.

Because the weakest link in the chain is where everything breaks. And your red states with the weakest laws are where the majority of criminal guns come from.

Seems like the bigger issue is Washingtonians shooting other Washingtonians usually over inconsequential things. Maybe deal with that rather than pointlessly shaking your fist at some politician in Indiana

If people in Indiana didn’t have guns, then people in DC wouldn’t be able to shoot each other over inconsequential things, dumbass.

Oh yes that's EXACTLY what was said. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If guns were completely outlawed, they would be impossible to get just like it’s currently impossible for people to get illegal drugs…

Precisely. You cannot go into the corner chemist’s shoppe and buy cocaine or heroine or LSD. One cannot obtain them. Guns should be the same exact way. Unobtainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ LOL at the multiple references to research and data. This isn't science, nor is it some kind of linear algebra equation.

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't care about science, research, or data, which is why debating you is useless. It's like debating a conspiracy theorist. No point. Waste of time.

I'm not the pp, but it's not science and you don't know as much as you think you know. There are a lot of variables at play when it comes to violent crime.

"It's not science" ... "There are a lot of variables at play"

ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ LOL at the multiple references to research and data. This isn't science, nor is it some kind of linear algebra equation.

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't care about science, research, or data, which is why debating you is useless. It's like debating a conspiracy theorist. No point. Waste of time.

I'm not the pp, but it's not science and you don't know as much as you think you know. There are a lot of variables at play when it comes to violent crime.

No, there really aren’t any variables at all when it comes to violent crime. Just guns. That’s it. No guns, no widespread violent crime. Easy peasy.

Not only do you not know anything about crime and guns, but you obviously have an agenda because you are liberal. So basically, your opinion doesn't matter because you are both ignorant and lack objectivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ LOL at the multiple references to research and data. This isn't science, nor is it some kind of linear algebra equation.

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't care about science, research, or data, which is why debating you is useless. It's like debating a conspiracy theorist. No point. Waste of time.

I'm not the pp, but it's not science and you don't know as much as you think you know. There are a lot of variables at play when it comes to violent crime.

No, there really aren’t any variables at all when it comes to violent crime. Just guns. That’s it. No guns, no widespread violent crime. Easy peasy.

Not only do you not know anything about crime and guns, but you obviously have an agenda because you are liberal. So basically, your opinion doesn't matter because you are both ignorant and lack objectivity.

I can assure you I’ve forgotten more about science than you have ever learned in your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ LOL at the multiple references to research and data. This isn't science, nor is it some kind of linear algebra equation.

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't care about science, research, or data, which is why debating you is useless. It's like debating a conspiracy theorist. No point. Waste of time.

I'm not the pp, but it's not science and you don't know as much as you think you know. There are a lot of variables at play when it comes to violent crime.

No, there really aren’t any variables at all when it comes to violent crime. Just guns. That’s it. No guns, no widespread violent crime. Easy peasy.

Not only do you not know anything about crime and guns, but you obviously have an agenda because you are liberal. So basically, your opinion doesn't matter because you are both ignorant and lack objectivity.

I can assure you I’ve forgotten more about science than you have ever learned in your life.

If you think science has anything to do with gun legislation, you're either on crack or not a scientist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ LOL at the multiple references to research and data. This isn't science, nor is it some kind of linear algebra equation.

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't care about science, research, or data, which is why debating you is useless. It's like debating a conspiracy theorist. No point. Waste of time.

I'm not the pp, but it's not science and you don't know as much as you think you know. There are a lot of variables at play when it comes to violent crime.

No, there really aren’t any variables at all when it comes to violent crime. Just guns. That’s it. No guns, no widespread violent crime. Easy peasy.

The proof of this wise, well-founded, and fact-based statement is that there was no violent crime of any kind, anywhere, ever, before firearms were invented.

Although I seem to recall something between a couple of guys named Cain and Abel . . ..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most gun crimes are committed by a small number of people who’ve been arrested a million times. Instead of fruitlessly complaining about what other states are doing, we could just convict the bad guys, put them in jail and (here’s the crazy part) leave them in jail. Google people on trial in DC. Their rap sheets are astounding.

I follow the police experts and research rather than random folks posting on DCUM.

You don’t - you just cherry pick selected evidence that already accords with your opinion.

Trying to control gun crime by reducing supply instead of punishing people who illegally carry/use guns is a fools errand that doesn’t pass the common sense test. There are almost 400 million firearms estimated to be circulating in the US, with almost 10 million more being added to the supply each year. We don’t have walls or checkpoints around American states and cities which allow us to search all the vehicles going in and out. You aren’t going to stop circulation of guns in this country. It’s fine to try to crack down on straw purchases, I favor it, but to think it will be anywhere close to as effective as cracking down on illegal users of guns is foolish.

Actually what I support the most is extension of blue state laws at a federal level. It would cut gun crime across the US efficiently (again because it's clear sensible gun legislation works when criminals and even Mexican drug cartels turn to certain specific US states for guns because they can't get them locally because of more stringent laws). Sadly, I don't see it happening in the near future, but I believe future generations will get it done, perhaps in 10-15 years with population trends. That's a separate thread for the political forum.

FWIW saying I believe this does not mean I believe police should be defunded or violent criminals shouldn't be prosecuted and jailed which is clearly a current, local problem. However I do feel the straw purchase issue gets sidelined and ignored when it's multiple pieces to a problem to be addressed.

Exactly. Criminals, gunrunners and cartels will seek out the weakest link where it comes to sourcing guns - and that is going to be whichever state has the weakest, most lax gun laws (invariably red states).

The cartels bring millions of pounds of drugs and bus loads of human beings into the US every year. Do you honestly believe that “sensible” gun laws (hundreds of which already exist without even a ding against criminal behavior) will stop them from acquiring (or even manufacturing) firearms somewhere else (say, Central America, the Mid-East, and other war-torn places, not to mention countries that are happy to see the US embroiled in stride) and then importing them into a vast waiting market among the criminal underworld in the US? “Sensible” laws against interstate sales, against straw purchases, against possession by felons, and against the criminal misuse of firearms already exist at both the federal and state levels. They clearly don’t solve the problem. Because the problem isn’t inanimate objects you have an unreasoning fear of, grounded in your fear of your own unacknowkedged interior rage and violence. It’s criminals. Deal with the criminals and the problem goes away.

Q. If sensible gun laws don't work, why do local criminals source guns far away from red states to get guns?

A. Because local gun laws work.

See research by Baltimore law enforcement that found that if local states added sensible gun laws, Baltimore homicides would drop by 25%.

Backing the blue means not just funding them, but LISTENING TO THEM.

Crime predictably follows the path of least resistance. But “sensibly” attempting to close off one avenue by trammeling the rights of the overwhelming percentage of people doesn’t work because the criminal market, like all markets, adapts, and very quickly. Japan is an island with a centuries old anti weapons culture imposed by despots to secure their hold on power. Criminals still get all the guns they want. And nut jobs with political delusions make their own very effective firearms as the recent murder of a former prime minister demonstrates. Prosecute criminals, not objects.

Sensible gun laws already exist in some blue states but not many red states. Sensible gun laws don't stop high gun ownership in Switzerland. I'm NOT saying don't prosecute criminals, I'm saying we make it easy for criminals then complain that we have criminals. We wouldn't have to prosecute for as much crime if we made it more difficult to commit in the first place.

Again, you're ignoring the actual data and research that has already showed impact of sensible gun laws on crime. Respond with data, not anecdotes and opinions.

People in Switzerland routinely keep government-issued, fully automatic, actual military assault rifles in their homes along with government issued high capacity magazines and high powered anti-personnel ammunition.

Amazingly, these firearms are not misused.

I guess it’s the “sensible” laws. Couldn’t be anything else.

There are in fact many, many instances of mass shootings and murders in Switzerland that are committed with these govt issued machineguns. But the Swiss govt keeps them from being reported in the press, so no one hears about it. This policy is encouraged by the American gun lobby and NRA, who are the primary weapons suppliers to Switzerland. But dumb rednecks like you don’t know this because Switzerland doesn’t have a first amendment and a free press.

The NRA doesn’t make or sell guns.

The Swiss manufacture some of the best small arms in the world.

And how convenient a conspiracy theory — there’s a cover up, but no evidence. Please.