ATF joins NYPD

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/15/cbs2-exclusive-atf-gun-crime/

At first I thought this might be good news--that NYC might have learned from Richmond's success with "Project Exile," where federal charges were added to state charges to make sure violent criminals were put away for a long time. And it appears that that might be one of the objectives, but the Obama administration's attitude about gun control and its Justice Department's pathetic record on enforcement of existing gun laws made me suspicious.

About halfway down, I found what I believe to be the real motivation: “Of course, when the ATF gets involved with our resources and our tracing expertise, we’ll be able to figure out if weapon is part of an interstate trafficking operation,” Mulham said. So this is probably a Bloomberg-inspired effort to prove that New York's gun control regime actually works and that all crime guns in NY come from Virginia or somewhere else. Then the logical conclusion would be that other states need to tighten up their gun control laws.

This might even be part of a coordinated media campaign, since it comes right on the heels of recent reports about a study (by the Johns-Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) which claims Connecticut's handgun registration requirements have reduced "gun violence" by 40% (but only if you compare CT to the "right" states and only if you pick the "right" years to analyze).

I've found that the 'ol "Strict gun control laws would work if it weren't for people bringing guns from places with lax gun laws" argument to be absurd.

Gun control proponents always try this kind of crap when you point out murder rates in places with strict gun laws. Chicago is my favorite example. I always ask, "If gun control works, why is the firearm homicide rate higher in places that have sticter gun laws?".....and I invariably receive the reply, "Well, that's because of places with loose gun laws. People bring the guns in from places where it's easier to get them.".

HA! That's completely absurd!

If this were true, why doesn't this explain why the crime isn't greater in places where the gun laws are looser? Why would a criminal have to bring a gun from such a dangerous place with those evil lax gun laws (with a low crime rate).......to a place (with a high crime rate) where the gun laws prevent the very thing he's supposedly leaving?

This is like claiming M&M's candy causes cancer.

Well, if this is true, explain why the incidence of cancer is greater on Three Mile Island, where you can't buy M&M's, than in the Mars factory where they make M&M's in the first place.

"Well, it's because people bring them in to Three Mile Island from places where M&M's are easily obtained."

This answer does not explain why, if M&M's cause cancer, it doesn't do so in places where M&M's are prolific.

Just as absurd as the claim that guns are responsible for crime: If they did, why are the crime rates so low in places where guns are more prolific? Criminals bringing them into places where gun laws are strict from places where they are not fails the logical "smell test".

Superlite27 said:

I've found that the 'ol "Strict gun control laws would work if it weren't for people bringing guns from places with lax gun laws" argument to be absurd.
SNIP

Click to expand...

What Superlite said.

Did you spot the clinchers and dead give-aways in the article?


The message is clear: "Don't you DARE exercise your Second Amendment rights."

It doesn't get any clearer than that.