The article quoted, and read by me, effectively states this:
85% of guns used in crimes that were recovered by law enforcement were purchased at least once in their purchase/sales history by private party and a private party transaction. Therefore, private party transactions are responsible for 85% of criminals receiving guns.
Fucking flawed logic on so many levels. The article does not state that 85% of guns used in crimes were sold from a private party to the criminal, yet the whole article builds it's whole basis on a fact which doesn't exist.
Once again, here is the quote:
Loose correlation, not causation. The rest of the article is basically moot because the whole premise is false. In this instance, the baby should be thrown out with the bath water because there isn't a fucking baby in the tub.
85% of guns used in crimes that were recovered by law enforcement were purchased at least once in their purchase/sales history by private party and a private party transaction. Therefore, private party transactions are responsible for 85% of criminals receiving guns.
Fucking flawed logic on so many levels. The article does not state that 85% of guns used in crimes were sold from a private party to the criminal, yet the whole article builds it's whole basis on a fact which doesn't exist.
Once again, here is the quote:
Some 85% of all guns used in crimes and then recovered by law-enforcement agencies have been sold at least once by private parties.
Comment