The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

[SUBMAN1]

Oh really? More smoke blown up our you know what by Hillary:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...umber-claimed/

-S

[Enigma]

Did you even read the article or just the headline?

[Platapus]

The misuse of statistics is not uncommon.

A good read on the subject is How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff

Moral: If you don't know the basis (the full basis) for a statistic don't believe it.

As my instructor in stats used to tell us: 83.72% of all statistics are inflated and give a false sense of accuracy.

[August]

Looks to me like Subman got the gist of the article...

The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

[UnderseaLcpl]

As Platapus stated, a misuse of statistics is not uncommon. People are too often blinded by preconcieved notions. They see what they want to see, as the saying goes.

[SUBMAN1]

Then why is Hillary on this bandwagon against US citizens then? Oh! I just remembered - during the Clinton years the Assault weapons ban. I'm guessing she is on her bandwagon to disarm us again.

-S

[Frame57]

You are correct Subman. Just like that freakshow Feinstein who is anti-gun, but yet the harpy carries a .38 in her purse. Hypocritical %$#@*

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Then why is Hillary on this bandwagon against US citizens then? Oh! I just remembered - during the Clinton years the Assault weapons ban. I'm guessing she is on her bandwagon to disarm us again.

-S

YEAH! Because people have every right to run around with assault weapons that are much more damaging than handguns with no restrictions whatsoever!

Hey, these guys were exercising that right:



And so was this guy:



Why is it so many people cling to their weapons like this? Handguns are fine, but assault weapons are just unneccessary all the way around. What are you going to do with one, anyway? Go hunting? You'll have nothing left to eat!

[FIREWALL]

I can make more money here in the US selling a gun of any type than in Mexico.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

I can make more money here in the US selling a gun of any type than in Mexico.

What's a peso worth to the American dollar these days, anyway?

[FIREWALL]

@ SH > Peanuts

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Hey, these guys were exercising that right:

No, these guys were criminals. They were committing illegal acts. No one has the right to commit an illegal act; hence the illegality of the act.

So no they were not exercising a right, they were committing a crime. The two are mutually exclusive.

And so was this guy:



Why is it so many people cling to their weapons like this? Handguns are fine, but assault weapons are just unneccessary all the way around. What are you going to do with one, anyway? Go hunting? You'll have nothing left to eat!

Please note that there is a difference between law abiding citizens and criminals. Even though both may possess a specific type of firearm, they are completely different people.

What is a law-abiding citizen going to do with an Assault weapon (as defined by the 1994 act)? Any legal action they wish to do with it.

In our form of government, the citizen does not have to justify actions, it is up to the government to justify the restriction of actions = freedom.

In free societies, it is not a good idea to preemptively restrict activities because of the possibility (no matter how slim) of a future illegal action.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

@ SH > Peanuts

6,000,000-Peso-Man, your country needs you...

[jumps fence into US]

There's two American dollars we don't see again...

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Platapus

No, these guys were criminals. They were committing illegal acts. No one has the right to commit an illegal act; hence the illegality of the act.

But what were they using to commit the illegal act? Automatic assault weapons. If they'd not been able to obtain these guns in the first place, that day would have ended quite differently.

So no they were not exercising a right, they were committing a crime. The two are mutually exclusive.

They had the right to own assault rifles in the first place. And insodoing, they had the ability to commit multiple crimes with them.

Please note that there is a difference between law abiding citizens and criminals. Even though both may possess a specific type of firearm, they are completely different people.

That difference is what's difficult to distinguish, however. The debate comes down to should we ban assault weapons entirely and drastically reduce the risk of their misuse by the people (note that this does not mean it will be completely eliminated), or should we allow the people to keep them but as a consequence allow the risks to still remain with high potential to be unleashed by a certain portion of these very same people?

What is a law-abiding citizen going to do with an Assault weapon (as defined by the 1994 act)? Any legal action they wish to do with it.

But there's plenty of problems and risks with allowing them to own assault weapons, which is what this is all about. Criminals always start out as these citizens. You, me, and plenty of other people know this. Distinguishing them apart in the first place is impossible, hence it's not wise to try and tackle the situation from that perspective.

In our form of government, the citizen does not have to justify actions, it is up to the government to justify the restriction of actions = freedom.

And the justification here is the reduction of violent crimes against the faithful people of the country, moreso the reduction of the potential of violent crimes to occur in the first place.

In free societies, it is not a good idea to preemptively restrict activities because of the possibility (no matter how slim) of a future illegal action.

I suppose the same applies for no matter how great the risk may be, right?

The simple fact of the matter is that people can have every right to bear arms. I'm not saying they shouldn't; neither is the current administration (or Clinton's, for that matter). What we're saying as a whole is that there are just some arms that people shouldn't be allowed to bear because of the great risk that comes with them. I actually have no problem with a person owning an automatic weapon or an assault weapon, so long as they have been modified so they cannot fire a shot by a certified official.