I figured that since I actually paid for and read the study, I’d put in some rather telling quotes from the study which define its level of intentional manipulation of the data. Basically, this study (and every other study I have read out of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. They are clearly an excessively biased source who’s intentional manipulation of data to progress their personal agenda is criminal in its misinformation of the American public. Here are the quotes and some comments towards those quotes:

“We considered a crime gun likely to have been trafficked if the interval between retail sale and recovery by the police was less than 1 year, as long as the criminal possessor was not the legal purchaser of record.”

That does not constitute trafficking.

“We focus primarily on likely trafficked guns originally sold by dealers located in the same state in which they were recovered by the police because the state-level gun sales regulations being examined can only directly affect such guns.”

Basically, what it comes down to is that in states that don’t allow or egregiously restrict the sale or purchase of handguns, handguns legally sold or purchased in that state aren’t as prevalent at crime scenes (because there are fewer legal purchasers…very telling quote regarding this further down). Handguns are of course still found at crime scenes, but all of those aren’t accounted for in the study. Additionally, crime rate statistics weren’t analyzed. Basically, yes, their method of statistical analysis is piss poor. On top of that, they had such a hard time trying to make their point look true that they couldn’t even shield the manipulation of data well (in most cases this is pretty easy to do with statistics).

“We measured local firearm ownership with a commonly used and validated proxy—the percentage of suicides committed with firearms within a jurisdiction—in this case, the county in which the city resides, during 2000 to 2002.”

This is possibly one of the most inane methods of non-linear measurement I’ve seen in recent history.

“The one-gun-per month variable was dropped from the model after it was found to have no independent effect on gun trafficking levels, and its inclusion in the model inflated the variance of other estimates.”

Even this study has to admit that limits on the number of weapons purchased in a specific timeframe are pointless. The fact is though that this will not stop any anti-second amendment group from pushing that particular legislation.

“Discretionary permit-to-purchase licensing was unrelated to gun trafficking from any state.”

Ahh, so it’s clear here as well that licensing requirements don’t affect criminals either. Of course any logical evaluation would tell someone that a criminal is one who does not obey the law and therefore would not obey licensing requirements either. Disarming by law only affects law abiding people. What this means is that disarmament is only effective at allowing criminals to victimize law abiding citizens.

“Law enforcement reports that they ever conduct undercover stings of gun dealers were also unrelated to trafficking.”

Law enforcement performing stings on law abiding business in an attempt to entrap them doesn’t affect criminals either. But it does have the desired effect from anti-2nd amendment groups of affecting law abiding citizens.

“In the USA, it is rarely easy to enact legislation that enhances gun sales regulations, but laws regulating gun dealers may be easier to pass than other laws that more directly impact law-abiding purchasers.”

This one was the telling quote I mentioned above. They make no bones about it…they don’t really care about the criminals, just law-abiding purchasers. The anti-2nd amendment groups are clear in their agenda. When the data does not support them they will manufacture or manipulate data to support them. When they finally realize that logic is not on their side, the attempt to devise methods by which they can drive their agenda in the face of logic. Criminals do not obey the law. This is a simple fact. Every gun law enacted in recent history is only effective against honest law abiding citizens, and that is exactly what they want.

“Discretionary permit-to-purchase systems are likely to result in far fewer potentially dangerous individuals lawfully purchasing guns and thus enhance public safety in ways unrelated to gun trafficking.”

Hmmm… when aligned with the same quote (as shown above); “Discretionary permit-to-purchase licensing was unrelated to gun trafficking from any state.” from the study…this one seems to be a redirect to support an agenda even though their own study refutes the effectiveness of the control.

Their logic is failed, their data is intentionally manipulated but their agenda is well defined and clear. The anti-2nd amendment groups want nothing more than to classify criminals as victims of society and anyone who protects themselves from criminals and corrupt government as vicious evil individuals while in the same sentence calling them law abiding.

Thank you for clearing that up Rama! I knew something didn’t seem right with this website.