As predicted Obama politicizes tragedy with calls for gun control

[NHL Fever]

BATF? The fast and furious gang? LOL. that's even worse.

These stats were collected years before Fast and Furious was even conceived, and before Obama was in office.

I do believe fast and furious began in 2006 right?

BAFT has been around for a VERY long time and is not a partisan institution. Are we to stop trusting the best sources of criminal statistics because of the possibility a Democrat could be in the presidency? What's better, just guessing? Perhaps we should also throw out data from the BLS, FBI and CIA as well, since they existed when Obama came into power?

If you have better data, provide. But do me the basic respect of actually reading the sources I provide and making an informed criticism.

[Watchman]

F&F did not begin under Bush. There was a gun-walking scheme under his watch (Operation Wide Receiver), but IIRC, it was with the knowledge of the Mexican gov't and involved guns with tracking devices in them. F&F is completely Obama's baby, had NO tracking devices placed in the guns, and the Mexican gov't had NO knowledge of the program. It was simply a ploy to produce a crisis wherein gun control legislation would appear more sensible and palatable.

[NHL Fever]

F&F did not begin under Bush. There was a gun-walking scheme under his watch (Operation Wide Receiver), but IIRC, it was with the knowledge of the Mexican gov't and involved guns with tracking devices in them. F&F is completely Obama's baby, had NO tracking devices placed in the guns, and the Mexican gov't had NO knowledge of the program. It was simply a ploy to produce a crisis wherein gun control legislation would appear more sensible and palatable.

I stand corrected however this is unrelated to the point, which is that the statistics quoted (which have nothing to do with F&F) are not bad simply because they were released by the BAFT, who then years later conducted F&F.

[dan]

I gotta say that I agree with BHO <gasp> on this..."The president, however, suggested Wednesday that it "shouldn't be controversial" to make the case that a "mentally unbalanced" person shouldn't be able to get a gun so easily."

The entire idea behind arming the citizen is that he could, and should, stop "nut cases" from shooting innocents.

If we don't want to participate, perhaps we should stay indoors.

Or, accept our fate.

[keck553]

These stats were collected years before Fast and Furious was even conceived, and before Obama was in office.

I do believe fast and furious began in 2006 right?

BAFT has been around for a VERY long time and is not a partisan institution. Are we to stop trusting the best sources of criminal statistics because of the possibility a Democrat could be in the presidency? What's better, just guessing? Perhaps we should also throw out data from the BLS, FBI and CIA as well, since they existed when Obama came into power?

If you have better data, provide. But do me the basic respect of actually reading the sources I provide and making an informed criticism.

In case you didn't know, the president appoints the heads of agencies like the BATF.

Fast and furious might have its roots in Operation Wide Receiver that began in 2006, but it had controls. Under the Obama Administration those controls were removed, over 2000 guns walked over the border and numerous Mexican nationals and at least one US border agent was murdered.

It appears someone took an existing program and altered it to create statistics to argue for more gun control. I remember early in the Obama administration the push for more gun control "because guns made in America were "walking across the border." turns out the BATF under the Obama administration changed their mission from tracking guns to creating false data.

And you ask me to trust these clowns? No way.

[NHL Fever]

In case you didn't know, the president appoints the heads of agencies like the BATF.

The president at the time of this data collection, was G.W.Bush. It regardless beside the point, the president has absolutely nothing to do with the information in question, nor does the head of BAFT.

Fast and furious might have its roots in Operation Wide Receiver that began in 2006, but it had controls. Under the Obama Administration those controls were removed, over 2000 guns walked over the border and numerous Mexican nationals and at least one US border agent was murdered.

It appears someone took an existing program and altered it to create statistics to argue for more gun control. I remember early in the Obama administration the push for more gun control "because guns made in America were "walking across the border." turns out the BATF under the Obama administration changed their mission from tracking guns to creating false data.

And you ask me to trust these clowns? No way.

Again, the data collected has nothing to do with BAFT senior levels, and was collected long before Obama admin. It is based on police requests for trace, it's not a study initiated by BAFT nor do any politicians have control over it.

So what data can we use? None?

I quoted and linked you another study regarding type of guns used. Any response?

[Watchman]

So what data can we use?

Did you look at the data in the pdf file, Gun Facts, I supplied above in post #51?

[NHL Fever]

Did you look at the data in the pdf file, Gun Facts, I supplied above in post #51?

This is published by Guy Smith, a pro-gun advocate. Obviously he will shape the data in the way he wants to show it, which appears to be exactly what happens. My first question to you is - have you read it? If not, and you're not willing to, its hard to have a debate where you hope it says what you want but don't actually know what it says. But if you have, and if you have specific points you want to talk about, I'm willing to debate them and look into them. I can't debate his entire Gun Facts all at once, its too long.

I'll pick a few I noticed on the first few pages, to show the way he spins this:

1) He picks out Switzerland as a nation with high ownership and low crime. Firstly Switzerland is the most extreme exception to the trend, picking them is like choosing the worst town in Nevada to talk about home foreclosure rates and making conclusions about the whole US from it. But beyond that there are critical points of Switzerland's law that he leaves out, which help to explain what's going on:
- Switzerland confiscates nearly all the ammo from its citizens, and prior to doing that, any ammo had to sealed and inspected annually, and the quantity was tightly limited
- If you buy ammo at a range, you have to use it all at the range
- Swiss laws on carrying a weapon are very strict, and it rarely happens outside of security or police jobs
- Laws on transporting a gun and also strict, including the fact the gun cannot be loaded, and the ammo must be transported separately
- Switzerland is an almost totally white, highly educated, wealthy, immigration-resistant country with minimal drug problems. Nations like that have low crime no matter what.

2) The example of Canada was kind of funny. He says rates were low in 1920 - but after gun control had significantly increased by....1986. I mean lol. When you need to use a 66 year time span to make your point, you are reaching deep into the barrel. Cause you know...almost nothing changed between 1920 and 1986 except guns laws, right?. lol Is this guy serious?
- Crime was much lower almost everywhere in 1920. It was a completely different society with completely different values.
- mid-80's were the period of highest crime everywhere in the western world, and this includes crime unrelated to guns. This was not specific to Canada, and has nothing to do with gun law. Smith picks a time with a completely different, highly moral Canadian society 90 years ago, then compares that to the time of absolute highest crime in modern history, which happens to fall at some point after gun law changes. el oh el

3) Britain: He makes the same mistakes all pro-gun advocates make when looking at Britain crime rate after gun control. This means looking at Britain gun ban followed by increasing crime but ignoring:
- the fact that all crime went up, not only gun-related or violent crime
- the fact that the way Britain collected statistics changed at the same time, and reporting of every type drastically increased as a result. Independent survey's of the victimization of the population did not confirm a real increase.
- He also again uses the silly comparison of Britain in 1919 just like with Canada. In both bases he shows low rates compared to US rates, but failing to mention that the primary reason for this was massive crime rate fluctuations in the US that had nothing to do with gun control in either Canada or Britain.
- He also sounds a bit silly saying later on that "Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed". So why, Mr Smith, did you just do that?

4) Australia
- He states that after sweeping gun control laws in 2000, the rate of homicide went up in 2001-2002. But the accompanying graph appears to show the opposite, that it went down. Maybe that graph is wrong, I checked the Australian Institute of Criminology and there was a homicide increase in 2001-2002. It was a tiny increase (about 0.5%), and no different from increases and decreases over the years prior to 2000. As a matter fact it had simply increased to the 1999 level, one year prior to the law. But more importantly, Smith doesn't mention what happened after 2002, which was a decrease to levels below those in the pre-2000 era (this btw, is exactly what gun control predicts - an increase followed by a net decrease afterwards). When I look at this graph and consider the tiny little part Guy Smith wants me to think is an upward trend - I kind of wonder at the extent to which he has gone to manipulate the data for his goals in other areas.

5) In attempting to debunk the 'myth' that the US has high crime, Smith compares the US to a list of mostly gang-infested third world countries. Yes Mr. Smith, when you compare your crimes rates to the Columbia and Jamaica, you're going to look pretty good. How about comparing to places where people actually want to live, like the first world civilization?

Anyway that's a skim but if you want to discuss certain things in more detail let me know. It seems clear Guy Smith is willing to do significant massaging of the data and cherry picking to make his points, but a little digging reveals much of what he omits.

[Watchman]

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I will. Life seems to be getting in the way presently. Thanks for your comments!

[keck553]

The president at the time of this data collection, was G.W.Bush. It regardless beside the point, the president has absolutely nothing to do with the information in question, nor does the head of BAFT.



Again, the data collected has nothing to do with BAFT senior levels, and was collected long before Obama admin. It is based on police requests for trace, it's not a study initiated by BAFT nor do any politicians have control over it.

So what data can we use? None?

I quoted and linked you another study regarding type of guns used. Any response?

Same response as your response to the other study. It's biased.

[NHL Fever]

Same response as your response to the other study. It's biased.

Biased based on what?

[keck553]

Biased based on what?

Previous exposed lies and deceptions. Come, we've already covered this.

http://www.examiner.com/article/atf-...pad-statistics

[NHL Fever]

Previous exposed lies and deceptions. Come, we've already covered this.

http://www.examiner.com/article/atf-...pad-statistics

That is nonsense. Lies from 2008-2011 do not invalidate everything BAFT has ever done. The FBI has lied at least once in history as well - does everything they have every collected mean nothing then? Come on man, are you really interesting in discussing this?

1) BAFT stats are from years before any of that, or any of those people were involved
2) Police trace requests through BAFT, have absolutely nothing to do with Gunwalking or any other BAFT policy
3) Other studies confirm the same thing.

You understand the the connection you are trying to make? You are suggesting that because in 2008, a new attorney general directed an operation which was dubious, that this means police request for tracing on weapons in 2002 is compromised. How does this make any sense?

[keck553]

That is nonsense. Lies from 2008-2011 do not invalidate everything BAFT has ever done. The FBI has lied at least once in history as well - does everything they have every collected mean nothing then? Come on man, are you really interesting in discussing this?

1) BAFT stats are from years before any of that, or any of those people were involved
2) Police trace requests through BAFT, have absolutely nothing to do with Gunwalking or any other BAFT policy
3) Other studies confirm the same thing.

You understand the the connection you are trying to make? You are suggesting that because in 2008, a new attorney general directed an operation which was dubious, that this means police request for tracing on weapons in 2002 is compromised. How does this make any sense?

Who was in charge when they lied about Waco? Ruby Ridge?

[NHL Fever]

Who was in charge when they lied about Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Don't know, and irrelevant. Police traces have nothing to do with who's in charge. Please stay on topic - the topic is types of guns used in crime. We have a corroborating study saying the same thing as the BAFT data. Any response?