In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Meaningless Criminal Data
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Meaningless Criminal Data
Subject: Meaningless Criminal Data From: nealknox@nealknox.com (Neal Knox) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:39:28 EST
Nov. 6 Neal Knox Update -- The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported this week that more prison inmates are obtaining their guns from friends and relatives rather than buying them in gun shops, which some pundits are equating to "success of the Brady Act." Not really. It simply indicates that if roadblocks are put between criminals and guns, the criminals simply find their way around them. Fact is, although the number of inmates obtaining guns at a retail shop, pawn shop or "flea market" fell from 21 percent to 14 percent between 1991 and 1997 (so the inmates say) none of the articles or BJS spreadsheets I've studied cross-tabs whether those "inmates" were in the slammer for an offense with a gun. The Washington Post reported: "The survey found that about 10 percent of federal and state prisoners carried a military-style, semiautomatic weapon when committing a crime." Not true. The survey said that 10 percent of the 10 percent who had carried a gun while committing an offense had carried an "assault weapon," and I doubt even that 1 percent is a reliable number. To be useful, data needs to distinguish between an armed criminal and a first-time offender in the slammer for income tax evasion. As James D. Wright's similar Justice Department survey of incarcerated prisoners in the early 1980's showed, while around 20 percent had obtained their guns from licensed dealers, only 7 percent of gun-misusing convicts had obtained their guns from regulatable sources. (And that study didn't show whether the criminal had a previous disqualifying conviction at the time of acquisition.) I have not the slightest doubt that the somewhere less than 7 percent of armed offenders making "legal" purchases has decreased due to the greater roadblocks, but I've yet to hear anyone in authority claim that armed criminals who want a gun have any problem getting one. The key to legislation and statistics are the definitions. The stated definitions in the BJS worksheets make no sense. Guns are either "single shots," "semi-automatics" or "assault weapons" (which, DOJ says, fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger). Surely the Justice Department can produce more useful data than this.
The conferees on the Defense Authorization bill have now met three times. Until the report on the bill is final, we have no guarantee that all traces of the Senate bill's Sec. 1062 -- allowing the government to order the destruction of any "significant weapon" it ever owned -- will be removed. I think Sec. 1062 will be eliminated, but I'll not breathe easily until it is removed -- along with the person(s) responsible for putting it in the bill.
George Will's column this weekend, citing the Fifth Circuit's "persuasive" Emerson decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right, marks a near-complete turnaround for the usually conservative pundit. In 1992 he had enough faith that the Second Amendment meant something that he wanted it repealed, but in 1994 Jeff Snyder's "Nation of Cowards" essay began bringing him around. Looks like the 5th Circuit finished the reversal. He wrote this weekend that President Bush, by issuing alerts of further terrorist attacks, and calling for greater public vigilance, had in effect deputized the entire populace. "So this is an appropriate time to revisit the most fundamental -- the philosophic -- reason why both the right and the fact of widespread gun ownership reflect a healthy dimension of America's democratic culture." Very good, George.
The NRA Board of Directors, for the first time in three years, had an energetic debate over policy during Saturday's meeting. I applaud the debate, if not the result. The topic was CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701, which would put $3 billion per year into a smorgasbord of programs including both Wildlife Restoration and land acquisition. Westerners, particularly, who have fought a losing battle with the national government over land acquisition and land policies, were livid when it became known that NRA had endorsed the bill. It's been a hot topic on the internet and in the mails for months, and opponents had picked up considerable support on the board. Board members Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the chief sponsor, and Sen. Larry Craig, debated the issue in a closed session of the Legislative and Hunting and Wildlife Conservation committees Thursday. The committees produced a draft policy statement which was further changed during the board debate, eliminating most references to land acquisition except for decrying and opposing the tendency of Federal lands being closed to hunting and shooting. What passed started out "The NRA reaffirms its endorsement of the wildlife conservation and restoration provisions of H.R. 701...." As several pointed out, the NRA Board -- which is supposed to set policy -- had never affirmed endorsement, so could not reaffirm it. Vice President Kayne Robinson tried to soften the slap at staff by saying "We didn't create this mess; we inherited it." Not really. All of the current leadership was in place when NRA first began supporting the bill in 1998 (except ILA Director Jim Baker). In most large bills there are some juicy tidbits, but slathering a rotten fish with tartar sauce doesn't make it edible. As a native of Texas and a one-time resident of Arizona, I've seen what the Feds do with "their" land, and I sure don't want them spending a billion or two every year gobbling up more. Even with its good provisions, CARA is not a bill NRA should endorse -- but has. http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00063.html
Subject: Meaningless Criminal Data From: nealknox@nealknox.com (Neal Knox) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:39:28 EST
Nov. 6 Neal Knox Update -- The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported this week that more prison inmates are obtaining their guns from friends and relatives rather than buying them in gun shops, which some pundits are equating to "success of the Brady Act." Not really. It simply indicates that if roadblocks are put between criminals and guns, the criminals simply find their way around them. Fact is, although the number of inmates obtaining guns at a retail shop, pawn shop or "flea market" fell from 21 percent to 14 percent between 1991 and 1997 (so the inmates say) none of the articles or BJS spreadsheets I've studied cross-tabs whether those "inmates" were in the slammer for an offense with a gun. The Washington Post reported: "The survey found that about 10 percent of federal and state prisoners carried a military-style, semiautomatic weapon when committing a crime." Not true. The survey said that 10 percent of the 10 percent who had carried a gun while committing an offense had carried an "assault weapon," and I doubt even that 1 percent is a reliable number. To be useful, data needs to distinguish between an armed criminal and a first-time offender in the slammer for income tax evasion. As James D. Wright's similar Justice Department survey of incarcerated prisoners in the early 1980's showed, while around 20 percent had obtained their guns from licensed dealers, only 7 percent of gun-misusing convicts had obtained their guns from regulatable sources. (And that study didn't show whether the criminal had a previous disqualifying conviction at the time of acquisition.) I have not the slightest doubt that the somewhere less than 7 percent of armed offenders making "legal" purchases has decreased due to the greater roadblocks, but I've yet to hear anyone in authority claim that armed criminals who want a gun have any problem getting one. The key to legislation and statistics are the definitions. The stated definitions in the BJS worksheets make no sense. Guns are either "single shots," "semi-automatics" or "assault weapons" (which, DOJ says, fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger). Surely the Justice Department can produce more useful data than this.
The conferees on the Defense Authorization bill have now met three times. Until the report on the bill is final, we have no guarantee that all traces of the Senate bill's Sec. 1062 -- allowing the government to order the destruction of any "significant weapon" it ever owned -- will be removed. I think Sec. 1062 will be eliminated, but I'll not breathe easily until it is removed -- along with the person(s) responsible for putting it in the bill.
George Will's column this weekend, citing the Fifth Circuit's "persuasive" Emerson decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right, marks a near-complete turnaround for the usually conservative pundit. In 1992 he had enough faith that the Second Amendment meant something that he wanted it repealed, but in 1994 Jeff Snyder's "Nation of Cowards" essay began bringing him around. Looks like the 5th Circuit finished the reversal. He wrote this weekend that President Bush, by issuing alerts of further terrorist attacks, and calling for greater public vigilance, had in effect deputized the entire populace. "So this is an appropriate time to revisit the most fundamental -- the philosophic -- reason why both the right and the fact of widespread gun ownership reflect a healthy dimension of America's democratic culture." Very good, George.
The NRA Board of Directors, for the first time in three years, had an energetic debate over policy during Saturday's meeting. I applaud the debate, if not the result. The topic was CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701, which would put $3 billion per year into a smorgasbord of programs including both Wildlife Restoration and land acquisition. Westerners, particularly, who have fought a losing battle with the national government over land acquisition and land policies, were livid when it became known that NRA had endorsed the bill. It's been a hot topic on the internet and in the mails for months, and opponents had picked up considerable support on the board. Board members Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the chief sponsor, and Sen. Larry Craig, debated the issue in a closed session of the Legislative and Hunting and Wildlife Conservation committees Thursday. The committees produced a draft policy statement which was further changed during the board debate, eliminating most references to land acquisition except for decrying and opposing the tendency of Federal lands being closed to hunting and shooting. What passed started out "The NRA reaffirms its endorsement of the wildlife conservation and restoration provisions of H.R. 701...." As several pointed out, the NRA Board -- which is supposed to set policy -- had never affirmed endorsement, so could not reaffirm it. Vice President Kayne Robinson tried to soften the slap at staff by saying "We didn't create this mess; we inherited it." Not really. All of the current leadership was in place when NRA first began supporting the bill in 1998 (except ILA Director Jim Baker). In most large bills there are some juicy tidbits, but slathering a rotten fish with tartar sauce doesn't make it edible. As a native of Texas and a one-time resident of Arizona, I've seen what the Feds do with "their" land, and I sure don't want them spending a billion or two every year gobbling up more. Even with its good provisions, CARA is not a bill NRA should endorse -- but has. http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00063.html