- The MAIG report constantly refers to all of the traced firearms as "crime guns" and indicates they were "recovered at the scene of a crime." Not all guns traced are from crimes. In fact, a routine traffic stop of a legally armed citizen might result in a trace if the detaining officer is feeling motivated. The gun used in a justifiable homicide could be submitted for a trace. Only about 1/6th of guns submitted to the ATF for tracing were related to a violent crime. The majority are for simple possession violations, which can be an easy thing to accidentally commit in draconian states like NY, NJ, MA, etc.
- The ATF trace data is not a random sample - it is a sample deliberately selected by individuals. The ATF notes this in the opening of all trace data reports:
The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe.
Presenting findings from this data as evidence of the efficacy or what MAIG calls "reasonable" gun laws is precarious at best. One could easily cherry pick from this data to illustrate a point. For example, in my home state of Washington more traced guns were from California than Idaho and Montana combined, despite the fact that the latter states are closer in proximity and have much more lax gun laws. - Many of the more restrictive states already have statewide registration and databases of firearms. These states can perform intrastate traces of "crime guns" and may not need to access the ATF trace data to determine origin. This further skews the sample data and could hide facts important to the debate. (Example: if a crime gun is traced in NJ and is found to originate in NJ via their own records, it would not necessarily be submitted to the ATF. Thus, the ATF trace data would not reflect potentially high levels of gun crime committed with firearms obtained within the state. This makes it harder to judge the efficacy of their laws.)
- MAIG plays with the numbers to present the data in such a way that it favors them, and omits data that does not. MAIG uses raw numbers in some instances, and numbers controlled for population (per 100,000 residents) for others . One of the sound bites intentionally released (knowing the media would gobble it up) was that a mere 10 states are responsible for selling half of all 'crime guns' in the US. What is left out in those articles is that those 10 states that originally sold 49% of traced guns contain 52% of the population.
- Causation is not equal to correlation. Even if the sample data used were an accurate representation of the source of guns used in violent crime (which it is NOT), the report still does not prove that heightened restrictions are the cause of lower export/trafficking numbers. Nor does it explain outliers like Missouri, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington that have very lax gun laws and low numbers of exports, even when controlled for population. We could also take a look at Washington DC, where almost all of the traced guns are imported. According to these trace data, Maryland exports 4.34 crime guns/100k residents to the District and Virginia exports 3.36 guns per 100k. Yet MD has already enacted 8 out of 10 of the MAIG regulations, while VA has only enacted 4 of them. How does MAIG explain this?
- The correlation also fails to indicate which laws, if any, are actually impacting the trace and trafficking rates. The most absurd illustration is an attempt to link right to carry (RTC) to gun trafficking. Is it the carry permits that allow for trafficking, or do states with laws that supposedly 'promote' trafficking also just happen to have RTC? It doesn't matter to Bloomberg & co. This poor sample data with no control group is enough reason to deny you your rights. While the report claims that RTC discretion is used to prevent misdemeanants and the mentally ill from carrying firearms, it fails to mention that New York City's discretion only allows for the famous and well-connected to receive permits and Philadelphia's discretion means that applicants with prior parking tickets are routinely denied the right. In entire counties of California, Sheriffs use their 'discretion' to simply deny all carry permits, while residents of other counties can exercise their right statewide. MAIG is drawing a weak conclusion here to attempt to scare people into enacting restrictive laws that have been in their (and other anti-gunner's) play book forever.
- What other statistic correlate with this data? A 2009 poverty rate map overlays pretty well with the ATF trace data:
So, by the MAIG conclusions, poverty must increase the illegal trafficking of guns. Perhaps you should have to verify your income level before you can exercise your gun rights. A map of the US black population correlates pretty well with the export data (other than a few outliers, which MAIG has no problem ignoring in their report):
Surely MAIG is not insinuating that we disarm the black population. Yet, it correlates well with their data. But that would be racist. Let's move on to a (growing) minority that everyone can get away with judging. Maybe - just maybe - fat people are the ones trafficking guns. Let's see:
Again, aside from a few inconvenient outliers, the map correlates strongly. Perhaps MAIG will soon be releasing their 10 point plan to crack down on fast food and gun trafficking. We could abandon our 2nd and 4th amendment rights by installing random police checkpoints to seize guns hidden in fast food bags. All joking aside, these maps are used to illustrate that point that correlation is not a strong enough reason to put reason aside.
These points show that the MAIG report is not focused on scientific rigor. They are focused on sound bites and digestible data points that will actually aid in abandoning common sense. They are hoping to generate a flash point of emotion that will convince us to give up rights that we have fought hard to establish and protect. Let's hope that it is only their sycophants in the media that will fall for such a ploy.
