Reader Yebby61 offers the following critique of our earlier assertion that the small number of firearms recovered during Operation Falcon can be taken as evidence that we already have enough gun control:
I'd give odds that those same 10,000+ wanted criminals have fewer golf clubs that the average American. The question that should be answered first is; how many of those 243 weapons were in the hands of the type of criminal that have or would use them to committ a crime? Few B&E's, smash & grab or even small time drug dealers have much use for a weapon of any kind.
The answer to this question can be found at the web site for Operation Falcon. The summary indicates several groups for whom guns might be described as "tools of the trade:"
The Posse assumes that murderers, sexual predators, armed robbers and paricularly weapons violations suspects would have a rather high incidence of gun possession. Indeed, if anyone ought to have an illegal firearm, weapons violators would seem to be in the top category.
Without a breakdown of who was carrying what, it is hard to say for sure. It is entirely possible that 10 or more of the firearms siezed came from a single arsonist, we simply don't know. Clearly more research is required.
Our commenter goes on:
Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for "shall issue" legislation across the 50 states, and I see nothing wrong for most "law abiding" American's to own a concealed weapon, and to be able to cross state borders wih it in their possession. But, using a 2% extrapolation in this case really doesn't pass the smile test.
We disagree.
While the sample size cannot necessarily be said to be representative of all criminals, it is significant. Any study with 10,000 participants is worth looking at. Clinical research is often based on far smaller examples. Indeed, most researchers would be happy with one quarter of this group.
The Posse is not saying that the data gathered in Operation Falcon is the ne plus ultra of law enforcement information. Rather, we are saying that at the very least, it provides strong evidence that existing gun laws are having some effect at restricting criminal access to firearms.
For critics like Tim Lambert to be vindicated, this sweep should have shown that criminals have far more guns than law-abiding citizens.
That is the thrust of his argument, indeed any argument in favor of tighter gun restrictions: that criminals be more affected than law-abiding citizens.
What this information suggests is that criminals aren't enjoying unfettered access to firearms. They aren't particularly heavily armed. The ones arrested here admittedly aren't representative - if anything they are more dangerous than the average street punks. These people are the criminal elite - which is why so many agencies cooperated to bring them in.
If anything, they should be the best-armed out there. They are hardened, repeat, violent offenders, many of them gang members and known figures in organized crime.
That is why we find the small number of firearms particularly significant.
Remember, gun control first affects the law-abiding. If handguns are banned, for example, the law-abiding by definition will be the first to turn them in and be disarmed.
Every obstacle placed in front of law-abiding gun owners, whether it be safe storage or outright bans, hits them first.
Disarmament is at its core the ultimate "trickle down" theory. The notion is that if the legal supply is reduced, the criminal will at some point follow.
This is the first evidence that the criminal pool of guns is already quite shallow and it indicates that further attempts to draw down gun ownership levels will most likely leave law abiding citizens rather than outlaws high and dry.
Comments