JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags gun control

Reply
Old 5th January 2013, 09:58 AM   #721
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
Here's the original report. look specifically at PP16 where it states:
"In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney Generalís office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to ATF for tracing."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf

That means Sen.Feinstein inflated her figures by a whooping 300% by omitting the whole truth.
Reading a bit further on page 16 we find why only a fraction of the firearms were submitted for tracing:

Quote:
Mexican government and law enforcement officials indicated Mexican government officials had not submitted all of the firearms tracing information due to bureaucratic obstacles between the Mexican military and the Mexican Attorney Generalís Office and lack of a sufficient number of trained staff to use eTrace.
What we don't find in this document is any indication that the weapons not submitted for tracing were directly shipped to Mexico from other nations.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 11:29 AM   #722
Chuck Guiteau
Muse
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Correct, they have a responsibility. They don't always fulfill it. If a small child is killed, yeah, it's the gun owner's fault.
No argument. If you want to own or use anything that is more dangerous than a cotton ball, you have an obligation to learn how to operate it responsibly. That includes firearms, and I have always been a firm proponent of firearms education. Look at my other posts.
Come to think of it, you can be irresponsible with a cotton ball, so add them to the list.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Look at the post. I never said I didn't want guns for protection. I said different people accepted different tradeoffs.
Your choices are your own, and no one should have the ability to control that as long as it does not affect my right to do the same. Gun bans don't just affect your choices, however, they affect mine as well. If you are willing to trade off the only realistic method of protecting your family from an assailant (force on force) in order to protect them from a tool used to implement force on force, when there are available means of insuring the safety from those implements, that is your choice. For or against, it's all the same.
Just don't attempt to regulate my ability to do the same, and that specifically is the objective of gun control as it is defined by the left.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's about 200 kids a year per a quick search. I didn't say it's common enough to offset the chance of personal attack.
200 children a year is a statistically insignificant number. Would you be willing to apply that exact same logic to any other reason for child deaths?

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's real that someone might threaten me. It's also real that the gun might be stolen, used against me, picked up by a depressed family member, etc.
I'll add the comment that you mentioned suicides ( which account for almost half the deaths by firearms in the US each year, and are constantly included without caveat by the left ( since if you took those out of the statistics, that omission alone would wreak havoc with their claims).
A suicide that uses a gun is categorized as a serious suicide, as opposed to a "cry for help" suicide. That means that they are determined and committed to taking their own life. If you merely remove the most available choice, the vast majority will simply revert to the next most available choice.
If you magically removed every firearm in the US tomorrow, it would not greatly impact the number of serious suicides. Therefore suicides should not be included in any statistical analysis regarding legislative gun control. The left just uses it to artificially inflate their figures.
Just as real as it might go off accidentally as your house is struck by a falling jet plane. Neither implies that the threat of aggression is lessened, only that you haven't taken steps to lessen the probability that those reasons would become a factor in the decision for or against ownership.
I'm sorry but the logic is flawed.


Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's statistically insignificant to you but might not be to someone else. I'm finding figures of about 200 per year. Like I said, different cultures, different tradeoffs.
No, math doesn't change according to ones culture. The Native Americans in Ney York had a culture that said a box of beads was worth more than Manhattan Island. That didn't alter the fact that it was a bad deal.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
OK. About how many kids are killed each year by first aid kits? Kids die at home from multiple reasons; does that mean we shouldn't address any of them?
You're right. the number of children killed each year by first aid kits would probably be less than statistically insignificant.
But once you take the supplies out of the box, and call them "stuff for boo-boos" or whatever, they begin to have great statistical significance.
Many more children are killed or injured each year by common household items than by guns.
Here are some links to sources I think you will find unimpeachable:
http://realestate.msn.com/10-kid-saf...mom-worry-less
http://www.cdc.gov/SafeChild/Childho...b_Summary.html


Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I don't know anyone who wants to take your guns away, Chuck.
Then you haven't been paying attention. There is a movement in Washington right now which is attempting to do just that, not to mention people who openly advocate a total gun ban, or the people both in and out of Washington who advocate a total ban, but realize that that making the statement overtly is a bad tactic which goes against the majority opinion, and therefore couch their desires in terminology that doesn't sound so draconian but has the same objective.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Well, in my formative years I never needed a gun in self-defense, and didn't meet anyone who did. There were times I had to elude people following me but fortunately no close-range attack.
In my formative years, I didn't either. The chief difference, apparently, is that I didn't have to elude anyone. Neither did my little sister (I am assuming your are a woman, my apologies if that is not correct).

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
The relevant data is not how responsible you and your friends are, but how responsible the preponderance of households are.
No argument there,either. The question is just how responsible are the people in the preponderance of households.
Judging from the statistics, they're pretty responsible. The really big question, IMO, is what to do about those who are not responsible (and who make up only a small fraction of the total number of people who possess firearms). The current laws in debate ignore this, and concentrates on a blanket application that would affect responsible owners far more than it would irresponsible ones.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
The fact that there are responsible gun owners doesn't neutralize the fact that there are irresponsible gun owners. It sounds to me like that's your argument.
No, that's not my argument. My argument is that it is more effective to implement measures targeting the irresponsible sector without unduly affect the responsible ones. A blanket approach dealing only with the firearms themselves has proven ineffective in the past. I cannot see how it would magically become effective now.
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
The household cleaners are out of reach of a dachshund, not hard to accomplish.
Then, obviously your dachshund is not as smart as a child. Or even as smart as a cat I once cohabitated with (you don't own a cat), who ws abled to open child proof cabinets. I thought there were mice in my apartment, since every time I bought a new bag of CatChow, a hole would be chewed into it within days. I found the true culprit after placeing a number of mousetraps in the cabinet, and came home to find one of them gripping Psycho's paw. The vet said that no bones were broken, but Psycho was not happy with my original decision to booby trap his snack repository anyway.
From then on, I kept the bag in the refrigerator, under the logic that he was unfamiliar with Archimedes theory of leverage and was too small to leverage the door open using only his own muscles.
After all, he was only a cat. And one who preferred watching TV to reading. I guess I should be glad I didn't subscribe to the Science Channel.
Chuck Guiteau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 11:58 AM   #723
Chuck Guiteau
Muse
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Reading a bit further on page 16 we find why only a fraction of the firearms were submitted for tracing:
The report cites one reason, but that doesn't mean there aren't other reasons, and important ones. It makes no mention of the actual gross number of weapons confiscated (it does allude to some reports).
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
What we don't find in this document is any indication that the weapons not submitted for tracing were directly shipped to Mexico from other nations.
Gee, i wonder why? You are assuming the report has no inherent bias.
The vast majority of illegal weapons favored by the cartels come from sources other than US individual sales.
Here are a few reports that took me all of 5 minutes to find with a simple google search:
http://mexicanmusings.blogspot.com/2...egal-arms.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggli...ms_into_Mexico
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110...0-percent-myth
The Wiki article even gives a breakdown of what, and where.
I don't rely on Wiki as the ultimate goto source for everything, but this article is well documented with cites.
Chuck Guiteau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 12:43 PM   #724
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
The report cites one reason, but that doesn't mean there aren't other reasons, and important ones. It makes no mention of the actual gross number of weapons confiscated (it does allude to some reports).

Gee, i wonder why? You are assuming the report has no inherent bias.
The vast majority of illegal weapons favored by the cartels come from sources other than US individual sales.
Here are a few reports that took me all of 5 minutes to find with a simple google search:
http://mexicanmusings.blogspot.com/2...egal-arms.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggli...ms_into_Mexico
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110...0-percent-myth
The Wiki article even gives a breakdown of what, and where.
I don't rely on Wiki as the ultimate goto source for everything, but this article is well documented with cites.
What we have here is a distraction. Oh no, US firearms retailers can't be a problem. It must be the Russian mafia or Chinese communists, even when there is no evidence to support that claim. Nor does the claim that the US weapons are mostly low quality used guns fit with the documented cases of brand new weapons being purchased at retail dealers and showing up only months later in the hands of Mexican criminals.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 12:52 PM   #725
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
The report cites one reason, but that doesn't mean there aren't other reasons, and important ones. It makes no mention of the actual gross number of weapons confiscated (it does allude to some reports).

Gee, i wonder why? You are assuming the report has no inherent bias.
The vast majority of illegal weapons favored by the cartels come from sources other than US individual sales.
Here are a few reports that took me all of 5 minutes to find with a simple google search:
http://mexicanmusings.blogspot.com/2...egal-arms.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggli...ms_into_Mexico
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110...0-percent-myth
The Wiki article even gives a breakdown of what, and where.
I don't rely on Wiki as the ultimate goto source for everything, but this article is well documented with cites.
What we have here is a distraction. Oh no, US firearms retailers can't be a problem. It must be the Russian mafia or Chinese communists, even when there is no evidence to support that claim. Nor does the claim that the US weapons are mostly low quality used guns fit with the documented cases of brand new weapons being purchased at retail dealers and showing up only months later in the hands of Mexican criminals.

Assume a field with 300 holes. If a wildlife expert surveys 100 holes and finds that 70% of them are occupied by prairie dogs, is it reasonable to assume that the remaining 200 are occupied by badgers?
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 01:06 PM   #726
Chuck Guiteau
Muse
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
What we have here is a distraction. Oh no, US firearms retailers can't be a problem. It must be the Russian mafia or Chinese communists, even when there is no evidence to support that claim. Nor does the claim that the US weapons are mostly low quality used guns fit with the documented cases of brand new weapons being purchased at retail dealers and showing up only months later in the hands of Mexican criminals.

Assume a field with 300 holes. If a wildlife expert surveys 100 holes and finds that 70% of them are occupied by prairie dogs, is it reasonable to assume that the remaining 200 are occupied by badgers?
There's no distraction here, other than a chuckle of amusement at someone who has difficulty in retracting his statement that is refuted by very well documented sources. I even included a blog by a Mexican and Fact Check, which is hardly a Republican bastion of conservative opinion.They back up the article with sources including the Mexican government itself.

You believe that the US individual gun sales is the primary source and you're not going to let the facts or simple logic get in the way.Got it.
Chuck Guiteau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 01:18 PM   #727
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Sorry Chuck, but the links you provided don't prove your claims. For example the Factcheck article simply said the 90% claim was wrong. It did not dispute that the US is a major source of guns used by Mexican criminals.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 04:50 PM   #728
Chuck Guiteau
Muse
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Sorry Chuck, but the links you provided don't prove your claims. For example the Factcheck article simply said the 90% claim was wrong. It did not dispute that the US is a major source of guns used by Mexican criminals.
Very inept attempt at constructing a straw man argument. The US is a source of illegal firearms into Mexico. I never denied that. I pointed out that the 90% figures were wrong. Not just off by a few percentage points, but by a factor of 3X or more, depending on whose figures you want to believe in.And that is a best case scenario.
As to whether we are a major factor, that, once again is a very debatable assertion. It depends on the definition of "major" within the context of the assertion.
But I do note that while many on the left, including Sen. Fenstein and the President, are claiming we are THE major source, you've decided to step the hyperbole down a might and us the term A major source.

Something else you probably haven't taken into consideration is that of those weapons traced, how many actually went to Mexico with President Obama's blessing? He might be able to dodge Project Gunrunner, but I think both he and Sec. Clinton are going to have a hard time explaining how at least some of those weapons that Sen. Feinstein is using to fuel her demands for an AWB, actually went to Mexico with the blessing of the State Department. It won't take all that many to significantly change even the high ball figures. The Obama Administration is already authorizing private purchases to Mexico at 10 times the rate Pres. Bush was.
On the bright side, look at it this way.
If you're right it makes a great case against Sen Feinstein's argument that stricter gun laws in the US will reduce crime here.
The Mexican Government already has, arguably, the strictest gun laws in the Northern Hemisphere and yet if you are correct , and with no posse comitatus law to worry about, done an abysmal job of keeping the peace in relation to gun violence.
While you're pondering that here is a .pdf I think you'll find interesting. It is from the Office of Sen.Charles Grassley, Co-Chairman, Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/judic...-documents.pdf
Chuck Guiteau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 07:29 PM   #729
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,117
Your error is still the assumption that the guns not submitted for tracing came from some unspecified source. Just because you want them to be from a source like the Russian mafia doesn't constitute proof that the did come from such a source. Or that the mix was substantially different than the firearms that were submitted for test.

The rest of your last post is a conspiracy theory. Please take it to the appropriate forum.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2013, 08:46 PM   #730
Chuck Guiteau
Muse
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Your error is still the assumption that the guns not submitted for tracing came from some unspecified source. Just because you want them to be from a source like the Russian mafia doesn't constitute proof that the did come from such a source. Or that the mix was substantially different than the firearms that were submitted for test.

The rest of your last post is a conspiracy theory. Please take it to the appropriate forum.
They're not coming from some unspecified source, whatever gave you that idea? The majority of the guns never submitted for trace aren't being submitted because they don't know where they're coming from, but precisely because they do know where they're coming from, and since it's not the US, there's no need to submit it in the first place. What part of that are you failing to comprehend?
Did you bother to read Sen. Grassley's memo? It's a real eye opener, and it's hard to claim that a memo from the Senator who Co-chairs the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control to the Acting Head of the BATF is not a reliable source.
Here are some excerpts:
The implication the article makes is that these firearms must come directly from U.S. manufacturers or U.S. Federal Firearms Licensees ("FFLs") selling guns to DTO members who smuggle the guns over the Southwest border. Unfortunately, this information paints a grossly inaccurate picture of the situation.

The weapons submitted for tracing represent only a small percentage of the number of weapons found to be part of the DTO related crime in Mexico.
Further, there has been significant evidence in the media recently regarding the proliferation of weapons in Mexico smuggled out of Central America.


Additional evidence regarding the source of weapons in Mexico is contained in an unclassified cable from the U.S. Department of State ("DOS") dated July 2, 2010, obtained by my office and attached to this letter
( emphasis mine)
It gets worse:
The most noteworthy portion of the information is that nearly 78% of firearms traced in 2009 and 66% off firearms traced in 2010 were assigned to a catchall category "No Final Sale Dealer" which means the firearms did not trace back to a United States FFL.It also includes firearms where the only nexus to U.S. commerce is that they were manufactured by U.S. companies. This means they are not sold by FFLs in the United States. Instead, they may be sold to foreign countries or militaries requiring approval of the State Department and Homeland Security. Additionally, this category includes firearms in the ATF's Suspect Gun Database-a category which would include nearly 2,000 firearms as part of ATF's Fast and Furious Investigation where the ATF knowingly authorized firearm sales to straw purchasers before the weapons were trafficked to Mexican DTOs.
There is plenty more, if you bother to read it.

I wish the rest was just a conspiracy, but no, it's a sad fact. Apparently you aren't aware of what has happened, and that speaks volumes for just how much research you put into this.
Have you ever heard of "direct commercial sales"?
What am I talking about, of course you haven't or you wouldn't be claiming it's just another conspiracy theory.
But irrespective of what you think, it's real. DCS is a policy where the government authorizes private companies to sell arms to foreign governments. Like Mexico.
These are semi-automatics identical to the ones the BATF requests the GOM to report for tracing. And recently 9000 of them turned up missing.
The Bush Administration initially authorized 2,476 of them to be sold (with State Department approval. But in 2010 the Obama Administration (also with State department approval had increased transfers to 18,709.
Not surprisingly, shortly after it was leaked through Wikileaks, they stopped releasing the figures.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_1...rming-cartels/

Give me a break. There isn't any "conspiracy theory' here, it's well documented enough that even gun control advocates are complaining about it.
Chuck Guiteau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.