Troll Gigging.

I get so few trolls here that I think other bloggers are taking pity on me and are now offering me theirs. Gunscribe from From The Heartland wrote a post on the recently concluded Operation Falcon back on tax Buy a Gun Day that I found interesting enough to leave a comment on. The whole post is good, but this is the money quote:

The most suprising statistic is that with all of the drugs that were found and arrests that were made, especially among the gang bangers and homicide warrants, there was only 243 firearms seized. This is in no way making light of the hard work that these dedicated men and women performed, they did their jobs with the utmost professionalism. It would seem however that based on the terrible information that the Brady Bunch and the Million Commie Mommies have been promulgating for years that there should have been more guns recovered.

Sarah where were the guns
We have been led to believe for years that guns need to be controlled, registered and/or banned to keep them from the hands of the criminal elite. Well last week an untold number of America'a dedicated Law Enforcement elite from all over the country engaged the enemy and only two percent of the criminals had guns. Even that number may be misleading in that more than one or even multiple firearms may have been seized from one location.

It would seem that the mythical "Gunshow Loop hole" is not what it is cracked up to be.

The comment I left:

Don't you see? This just proves that "nobody needs a concealed weapon" because only 2% of criminals have guns!

Trust me, the "million commie mommies," the VPC, et al. can find some way to twist the facts to fit.

Gunscribe replied, but there was a troll! (Anonymous, of course.)

Despite your assertion that only "Commies" would question the wisdom of unregulated firearms, I have to question some of your claims here.

The fact that one manhunt resulted in a relatively small amount of firearms does not mean that only 2% of criminals have guns, nor that gun control is unnecessary. The data here is far too limited to make a conclusion like that. It also doesn't take into account any firearms the apprehended may have had elsewhere or in the past.

Since there ARE gun control regulations in place, currently, if you DO choose to consider the results of Operation Falcon indicitive of gun issues as a whole, it isn't much of a reach to say that maybe gun control is working.

The "gun show loop hole," for instance; of course it isn't what it's cracked up to be- it doesn't exist anymore. There's been gun control legislation passed to eliminate it. Maybe that helps to explain the low number of guns found during Operation Falcon.

Between 1993 and 2001, the average annual number of "violent victimizations" involving firearms was 847,000. You can check this with the U.S. Department of Justice- it's from their statistics. I'm curious who it is providing information that makes the DoJ's look "terrible."

I thought that it might be useful for understanding this issue if I presented an alternate view on the subject.... Though, really, I expect this post to be deleted fairly quickly.
Northeastern Liberal Elitist

With Gunscribe's permission, let me reply to "Northeastern Liberal Elitist."

No one said "only commies would question the wisdom of unregulated firearms." Mere socialists, pacifists, and other Leftists do, too!

Actually, I love the "all-or-nothing" strawman, where the opposition to most gun control laws is therefore unequivocal opposition to all gun control laws. Really, NELE, you ought to try harder.

The fact that one manhunt resulted in a relatively small amount of firearms does not mean that only 2% of criminals have guns, nor that gun control is unnecessary. The data here is far too limited to make a conclusion like that. It also doesn't take into account any firearms the apprehended may have had elsewhere or in the past.

The point - which you so obviously missed - is that the gun control groups take whatever data they can get and twist it however necessary to support their pre-determined conclusions. (Guns'r bad, mmmkay?) Didn't you feel the breeze as that point parted your hair? No?

Since there ARE gun control regulations in place, currently, if you DO choose to consider the results of Operation Falcon indicitive of gun issues as a whole, it isn't much of a reach to say that maybe gun control is working.

(Case in point...) Oh, really? Someone should inform the National Academies of Science. They just did a detailed study of all the gun control research done to date. Their conclusion:

The committee was broadly charged with providing an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing social science data and research on firearms. Although there is a large body of empirical research on firearms and violence, there is little agreement on even the basic facts regarding important policy issues related to firearms. The committee's report deals with what current research can and cannot tell us about the role of firearms in violence. The report does not address specific firearms policies, such as the issue of gun control. Rather, its recommendations address how to improve the empirical foundation for future discussions about firearms policy.

Over the past few decades, there have been many studies of the relationship between violence and access to firearms; family and community factors that influence lethal behavior; the extent and value of defensive firearm use; the operation of legal and illegal gun markets; and the effectiveness of efforts to reduce the harms from or to increase the benefits associated with gun use. Our task was to evaluate these studies and the data on which they are based.

--

The committee looked at many interventions to reduce violence and suicide. Here, I must emphasize that even if it were shown that firearms clearly cause lethal violence, it would still be difficult to develop successful programs to reduce this violence. That's because interventions would have to address other factors in addition to gun use. The intent of the people involved, the nature of their interactions and relationships, their access to firearms, and the level of law enforcement are critical in explaining when and why firearm violence occurs. Without attention to this complexity, it's hard to understand the role that firearms play in violence.

Firearms are bought and sold in formal markets such as gun shops, and informal ones such as gun shows. Market-based interventions aimed at limiting access to guns for certain groups, such as convicted felons or juveniles, include restrictions on who can purchase guns and limits on the number of firearms that can be purchased in a given period. Arguments for and against these approaches are largely based on speculation -- not on scientific evidence. Data on gun markets are only now beginning to emerge. We believe that greater attention should be paid to research design and data needs regarding gun pipelines. More studies also should be done on potential links between firearms policies and suicide rates.

In other words, "The data didn't tell us anything." Especially it didn't tell the committee that "maybe gun control is working." Which is interesting, since a similar study done some twenty years previously at the behest of the Carter administration produced essentially the exact same result. That report, published in 1983 as Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America, came to this conclusion:

Should regulations restrict who may possess firearms? Should there be restrictions on the number or types of guns that can be purchased? Should safety locks be required? Answers to these questions involve issues that go beyond research on firearm violence.

These policy questions cannot be informed by current studies. Available data are too weak to support strong conclusions. Therefore, we believe that one of the most pressing needs is to pursue the data and research that are needed to fill knowledge gaps and, in turn, inform debate in this important policy area. Our committee identified key approaches to strengthen the research base on firearms and violence. We also believe that the federal government should support a rigorous research program in this area.

Research linking firearms to criminal violence and suicide is limited by a lack of credible data on firearm ownership (including possession and access) and individuals' encounters with violence. The committee found that the existing data on gun ownership and use are the biggest barriers to better understanding gun violence. Without better data, many basic questions cannot be answered. Such data will not solve all problems of methodology. However, the almost complete absence of this information from the scientific literature makes it extremely difficult to understand the complex interpersonal, social, and other factors that determine whether or not a firearm will be used to commit a violent act.

Twenty-two years of gun control legislation and research later, and they still can't find any evidence that "gun control works." Even the New York Times mentioned in a piece last week about the most recent effort at gun control, the federal "Assault Weapon Ban":

...a study for the National Institute of Justice said that it could not "clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

Decades of gun control laws, decades of research, no positive proof that the laws have affected gun crime. None. Don't you think that if "gun control is working" we'd have conclusive evidence of it by now?

The "gun show loop hole," for instance; of course it isn't what it's cracked up to be- it doesn't exist anymore. There's been gun control legislation passed to eliminate it. Maybe that helps to explain the low number of guns found during Operation Falcon.

Oh, PLEASE!

The "gun show loophole" is no such thing, and your ignorance is showing. The "gun show loophole" is known as "private party sales" and they go on all over the country, not just at gun shows. And where has legislation been passed? Nowhere major, to my knowledge. Private sales are still legal in most of the country, as they've always been. "It doesn't exist anymore?" Since when? Give me a date. Quote me the law(s).

Between 1993 and 2001, the average annual number of "violent victimizations" involving firearms was 847,000. You can check this with the U.S. Department of Justice- it's from their statistics. I'm curious who it is providing information that makes the DoJ's look "terrible."

And from where did this non sequitur come? For one thing, who said anything about DoJ looking "terrible." I didn't see reference one to them. Gunscribe attributed the "terrible" information to the Brady Bunch, et al. What you neglect in your little factoid is the data that illustrates that in each of the years from 1994 to 2001, the number of annual "violent victimizations" has been declining - and without any evidence that any "gun control" law has been responsible for the decline. Here's the Bureau of Justice Statistics chart

A decline from 5120 violent crimes per 100,000 population in 1994 to 2230 per 100,000 in 2003. That's a decline of more than 56%. Gun-involved violent crime has fallen right along with it:

The average might be 847,000 per annum, but the range is from 1,060,800 in 1994 to 366,840 in 2003. That's a 65% reduction.

And remember, the study done by the National Academies of Science could not link gun control laws to this decline. The only gun control law that passed since 1994 was the "Assault Weapon Ban," and the National Institute of Justice study couldn't even link that law to the reduction in "assault weapon" useage in crime.

But you know what has passed since 1994?

"Shall-issue" concealed-carry legislation. Four states in 1994. Seven more in 1995. Three more in 1996. Here's the map, just for your own edification:

But the studies haven't shown "right to carry" to decrease violent crime either.

No, all the dire predictions of "blood in the streets!" never came true. The worst thing you can say about CCW is that it might not have contributed to the drop in violent crime nationwide.

Imagine that.

"Alternate views" are welcome, so long as they are informed and not ignorant. Or if they're ignorant, as long as the presenter is willing to be educated. And speaking for both Gunscribe and myself, we don't delete the comments of our opposition. We use them.

It's much more educational that way.