NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps he is a firm believer in the bullshit baffles brains theory?

I too have taken DK (even when he was Whispering Legs) to task over that number and he just keeps trotting it out. :(

Just like you keep trotting out the myth that the NE has "stricter" gun laws and lower crime while ignoring the fact that VT has no license CC, several of the others had CCW, and NY had some of the highest crime in the nation for decades? As well as the myth that the South had "looser" gun laws and higher crime w/o presenting any evidence?

I did not say anything about banning guns. There should be stricter laws regarding acquiring guns and owners should be more responsible for safe storage of their weapons.

Approximately 500,000 guns are stolen each year from private citizens.

They don't need to buy them, they just steal them from so called Law Abiding Citizens (LAC).

Translation: Innocent civilians should be held responsible for the actions of criminals.

I have a further question for our resident anti-rights individuals.

The victim was carrying her firearm illegally. Do you believe she should be prosecuted for defending herself?

I always love this question. Even a lot of my good friends realize this. I live in the san francisco bay area, one of the most liberal places in the world, and there is a lot more pro-gun ownership then some might think. So many people realize that outlawing guns won't be effective in stopping crime, that law abiding ownership of guns can prevent crime, and that an oppressive government can't stop a citizenry that is well equipped.

But back to the question: What can the people do against a government that turns overtly oppressive?

A. Assault government buildings. The army and police couldn't spread enough men to have effective defense over every government building in the country. The citizens go in, shoot anyone who tries to stop them, forcefully evacuated the people inside, and burns down the buildings. Same with police stations. A dozen well armed, well trained civilians could easily pull these things off with semi-auto rifles, etc.

B. Shoot police, army, etc on the streets. Urban jungle. The US populace is trained and equipped well enough that if they didn't want the government in a city, the government would have to come to massive destruction of these cities to get things done. Every gunman in a random second story window could kill a few soldiers before they could even start returning fire.

C. Attacking army bases. They wouldn't be able to attack the larger bases at first, but a few hundred dedicated people could attack a smaller base, national guard supply bases, etc.

D. Wait it out. The army would have limited supplies, very hard to replenish. The people would shoot recruiters, burn recruitment centers. They would attack people found to be working with the government. They would attack companies supplying the government, or people working for those companies. The military would lose men and supplies, and not be able to replace them. The people would have a nearly 300 million man reserve, with hundreds of millions of guns to go around. As the military killed more people, more and more would join the cause of overthrowing them.

The common argument against this is that the government could just bomb the people fighting it, etc. That's worked so well in history, right? Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon? In the cities, attacks would be over in minutes, the people shooting the military and then dispersing. They wouldn't have targets. The populace would pull of harassment tactics, never giving the airforce or artillery targets.

Well, what about tanks, etc? That might work ok in the country, until things started to turn around. In the cities, molotov cocktails and the like would blind tanks, while people shot the accompanying troops. After a while of taking out troops and tanks, with so many veterans in our society, tanks would get restored to working condition, and AT weapons would be taken from supply depo's that are assaulted, and dead troops with them.

Hell, look at Tianamen Square. The people were widely not even armed, yet with molotov cocktails, flaming bus barricades, etc, they signifigantly slowed down the PLA, and killed a number of them if I remember right. Now imagine that, except 60% of those people having guns and signifigant training. The PLA soldiers getting shot as their tanks get trapped. The tanks getting over-ran as they didn't have troops to protect them.

People really underestimate an armed civilian populace.


here here!!!

She could have a taser and a cell phone. She'd first stun the guy and then call the police. Much more civil then this Wild West story.

Hey, yeah! Tasers! Whatever happened to them? (And stun guns...are they the same thing?) They're much better than guns.

Okay, I am returning to my anti-gun standpoint.

some day utracia, ilie and teh pantless hero are going to get mugged, and they'll go from zealous gun control advocate to all-consuming proponent of the right to bear arms.

"a conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged"

oversimplification, but not without its truth.

Nah, I'll just get myself a taser. *sings the "I <3 Tasers" song*

Nah, I'll just get myself a taser. *sings the "I <3 Tasers" song*

Except tasers dont always work. If someone is wearing a winter jacket or happens to be hopped up on meth then what? You cant shrug off a .40 hollowpoint. Nor does a taser have quite the holy #!@$ hes got a gun im outta here factor either.

Except tasers dont always work. If someone is wearing a winter jacket or happens to be hopped up on meth then what? You cant shrug off a .40 hollowpoint.

Don't bother, he'ld rather be "armed" w/ a one shot device that he has to be a perfect shot w/ that even many police are questioning the usefulness of than a firearm. It's the "scary" factor.

It's the "scary" factor.

Im counting on the fact that my 9mm Glock is scarey as hell to a criminal and proceeding to continue any further violent action twoards me would be a very very bad idea.

Hey, yeah! Tasers! Whatever happened to them? (And stun guns...are they the same thing?) They're much better than guns.

Okay, I am returning to my anti-gun standpoint.

I don't trust a taser with my life, but maybe you should learn the hard way.

Worst case scenario: one fewer annoying spammer on NSG.

I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms.


If the government ever decided to ban all firearms, and came to my house to collect mine, they'd be disappointed (as I lost all my firearms in a tragic boating accident :D ).

banning guns is beyond rediculous because the ones that need to have guns taken away from them would just ignore the ban any way and those that would need guns to protect them selves would be with out. if half the criminals carrying a gun thought there was now way that the innocent bystander they where gona rob would pull a gun and defend them selves armed robber would skyrocket.

I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms.


If the government ever decided to ban all firearms, and came to my house to collect mine, they'd be disappointed (as I lost all my firearms in a tragic boating accident :D ).

I suspect that if the anti-self-defense people do get their way on this issue, there will be a lot of those tragic boating accidents.........

Just like you keep trotting out the myth that the NE has "stricter" gun laws and lower crime while ignoring the fact that VT has no license CC, several of the others had CCW, and NY had some of the highest crime in the nation for decades? As well as the myth that the South had "looser" gun laws and higher crime w/o presenting any evidence?
And where do those crime guns come from? The lax Southern States. A full 85% of crime guns in New York State came from OTHER States:

Virginia 14.0
North Carolina 9.4
Georgia 9.2
Florida 8.8
South Carolina 7.8
Pennsylvania 6.3
Ohio 4.2
Alabama 2.8
Texas 2.7

It is interesting that you mention Virginia. Virginia is a HUGE crime gun supplier. Too many lax laws, and too many stolen guns.

BTW, isn't Richmond Virginia the per capita murder capital of the US?

I would litterally die before I gave one of mine up it was my great granddad's service rifle in WW1.

And where do those crime guns come from? The lax Southern States. A full 85% of crime guns in New York State came from OTHER States:

Virginia 14.0
North Carolina 9.4
Georgia 9.2
Florida 8.8
South Carolina 7.8
Pennsylvania 6.3
Ohio 4.2
Alabama 2.8
Texas 2.7

It is interesting that you mention Virginia. Virginia is a HUGE crime gun supplier. Too many lax laws, and too many stolen guns.

BTW, isn't Richmond Virginia the per capita murder capital of the US?



Actually, DC and Chicago have been given that title, nothing I can find suggests that Richmond is on that list. And oddly enough, both of those cities have very restrictive gun laws. Go figure.

Oh, BTW, not to nitpick, but your numbers only add up to 65%.

So, by what you are saying, the people of Virginia are to blame for what criminals from New York do? They should give up their rights to gun ownership because of New Yorks criminal elements?

And where do those crime guns come from? The lax Southern States. A full 85% of crime guns in New York State came from OTHER States:

Virginia 14.0
North Carolina 9.4
Georgia 9.2
Florida 8.8
South Carolina 7.8
Pennsylvania 6.3
Ohio 4.2
Alabama 2.8
Texas 2.7

It is interesting that you mention Virginia. Virginia is a HUGE crime gun supplier. Too many lax laws, and too many stolen guns.

BTW, isn't Richmond Virginia the per capita murder capital of the US?

actually by passing the gun laws there the figuatively shot them selves in foot. Put your self in criminals shoes would you rather rob a guy on street in an area where one in 10 are very likely to have thier own gun and shoot back at you, or would you rather go some where where 1 in 10000 is likely to have a gun as well so not be able to pull it on you when you rob them. By not having the gun laws the problem is self limiting.

Actually, DC and Chicago have been given that title, nothing I can find suggests that Richmond is on that list. And oddly enough, both of those cities have very restrictive gun laws. Go figure.
The KEY words were "per capita". I was wrong, Richmond is actually 4th highest murder capital per capita.

http://www.statestats.com/cit04r.pdf#search=%22homicide%20rate%20us%20cities%20richmond%20virginia%22

This picture might help?

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

Chicago has slid all the way down to 39!!

actually by passing the gun laws there the figuatively shot them selves in foot. Put your self in criminals shoes would you rather rob a guy on street in an area where one in 10 are very likely to have thier own gun and shoot back at you, or would you rather go some where where 1 in 10000 is likely to have a gun as well so not be able to pull it on you when you rob them. By not having the gun laws the problem is self limiting.
Yet New York is the safest large city in the US. How come?

Yet New York is the safest large city in the US. How come?

Okay, I'll give you that one, Richmond is a shithole of a city. But, if you look at the actual numbers, not per capita, New York see's a much higher crime rate than Richmond does.

To me, this rate per 100,000 people doesn't really tell you much. I ran a comparison between New York and the city I grew up in in California. If you look purely at it that way, my hometown of Simi Valley has a higher burglary rate than New York. But if you look at the actual numbers involved, Simi has a fraction over 1% of the burglaries that New York does. Using per capita really only makes a city look better than it is.

Oh, and Simi Valley has been one of the safest cities with a population of 100K or more for over a decade. For several years it regularly traded position for the top three spots.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_doors.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_purpose.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_response.jpg

Gun laws don't work as intended. But on the other hand, do we want lax firearms rules that opens access to the armory to every aspiring Larry Gene Ashbrooks, Colin Fergusons, Dylan Klebolds and Eric Harrises?

Gun control shouldn't be about cutting off firearms access to everyone. It should be about cutting off firearms access to people who are likely to do something extremely deadly with it. Background checks is a good idea. Unless you don't mind the idea of assholes in road rage having access to a more immediate and violent option. Guns can curb road rage yes, but that's if the defending side is the only one packing heat.

Of course, the legal owners need to be held up to some strict standards. There's too many stories of kids blowing the shit out of each other because Daddy left that pistol just where Junior can grab it and play Cowboy. And obviously stolen guns don't all come from stores.

Hey, yeah! Tasers! Whatever happened to them? (And stun guns...are they the same thing?) They're much better than guns.

Okay, I am returning to my anti-gun standpoint.
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_options.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_foam.jpg

Yet New York is the safest large city in the US. How come?

Please excuse me while I, a New York resident (or rather, ex) and my dad, recently retired from the NYPD, laugh in your face.

ok, you ban guns. and watch everyone kill each other wth tiny crossbows. imagine all whole load of gangsters running around with crossbows down there already low pants. armys of men running from trench to trench while atempting to load a crossbow, i mean if you are fighting a war, you want to have a crossbow powerful enough to wound a man so he is incapeable of fighting back. (killing is good but wounding them to the point of not being able to fight back is much better because it will take another 2-4 men out of the fight as they try to help him from the grips of death) this would mean you would have to use a foot styrip to help you restring it which makes you a sitting duck... well you get the point.

people are still gunna wound/kill people. guns are just a handy and efficient way of doing it.

I have a further question for our resident anti-rights individuals.

The victim was carrying her firearm illegally. Do you believe she should be prosecuted for defending herself?

Yes, she broke the law, same as if she'd attacked him with an illegal chemical spray etc.


people are still gunna wound/kill people. guns are just a handy and efficient way of doing it.
Yes, and I'm generally in favour of making it harder for people to wound/kill each other. (though I accept that the US is likely to have a harder job than say the UK of prevent the illegal acquisition of guns etc) Again, Taser, chemical sprays, there are non-lethal alternatives.

And where do those crime guns come from? The lax Southern States. A full 85% of crime guns in New York State came from OTHER States:

Virginia 14.0
North Carolina 9.4
Georgia 9.2
Florida 8.8
South Carolina 7.8
Pennsylvania 6.3
Ohio 4.2
Alabama 2.8
Texas 2.7

It is interesting that you mention Virginia. Virginia is a HUGE crime gun supplier. Too many lax laws, and too many stolen guns.

BTW, isn't Richmond Virginia the per capita murder capital of the US?

More traditional disingenousness by CH. Of course that's only "traced" firearms which don't represent even a double digit fraction of firearms used. Even the ATF says that doesn't represent accurate figures. I guess the past dozen times that's been pointed out to you have been forgotten? I guess the last dozen times you've never been able to show any causality between the passed laws and crime drops don't matter? You just keep repeating the same old nonsense. Kind of like you accuse DK of doing.

And as usual, you want to blame the citizens for the actions of criminals. Ans, as usual, you ignore the fact that numerous NE states had much less restricive laws than either NY, NJ, etc w/ higher crime rates and can't point out these "lax" gun laws in southern states. You just keep repeating that meme.

Yet New York is the safest large city in the US. How come?

Because Guliani started a program of actually going after criminals. The firearms laws didn't do a think.

Because Guliani started a program of actually going after criminals. The firearms laws didn't do a think.
Without the firearm laws, Guliani wouldn't be able to go after the criminals. :p

Without the firearm laws, Guliani wouldn't be able to go after the criminals. :p

Riiiiiight.

More traditional disingenousness by CH. Of course that's only "traced" firearms which don't represent even a double digit fraction of firearms used. Even the ATF says that doesn't represent accurate figures. I guess the past dozen times that's been pointed out to you have been forgotten? I guess the last dozen times you've never been able to show any causality between the passed laws and crime drops don't matter? You just keep repeating the same old nonsense. Kind of like you accuse DK of doing.

And as usual, you want to blame the citizens for the actions of criminals. Ans, as usual, you ignore the fact that numerous NE states had much less restricive laws than either NY, NJ, etc w/ higher crime rates and can't point out these "lax" gun laws in southern states. You just keep repeating that meme.
Speaking of "disingenousness", how many of you gun toting cowboys vote solely for candidates that support gun rights? High percentage?

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Ten People Who Are Threatening Your Ohio Gun Rights (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3244.html)

8) Betty Montgomery

Betty Montgomery is running against the Buckeye Firearms Association endorsed Democrat Marc Dann for Attorney General. The Attorney General is an extremely important position to the Ohio gun owner.

Betty Montgomery has not made it a secret that she DOES NOT support our right to carry concealed firearms for personal defense and DOES support the media’s “right” to publish YOUR name when you apply for a concealed handgun license (CHL). She also does not want to be affiliated with the National Rifle Association.

This is an election in which Ohio gun owners can have a voice. Make your voice heard and vote for Marc Dann over Betty Montgomery to protect your Ohio gun rights.

7) Mike Dewine and Sherrod Brown

In the race for Senator, Ohio citizens truly have no choice when it comes to their gun rights. Current Senator Mike Dewine has a long history of opposing the rights of gun owners. In fact, he was listed as number 10 on Human Event’s “Top Ten Anti-Gun Senators." His challenger, Representative Sherrod Brown, is just as bad. Mr. Brown also has a long history of opposing gun rights. They are both true enemies of our gun rights.

The biggest loser in this race is Ohio’s gun owners. We are left without a choice, because both candidates will work hard to strip us of our gun rights.

6) Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich is a super liberal congressman and former Mayor of Cleveland. Kucinich has a long history of opposing our gun rights. Despite a dismal record as a congressman, he continues to get reelected.

This is another election in which Ohio gun owners can have a voice. Make your voice heard and vote for Mike Dovilla over Dennis Kucinich to protect your Ohio gun rights.

5) Mike Mentel

Mike Mentel is the Columbus City Councilman who sponsored Columbus’s new super restrictive “assault rifle ban.” As a result of the ban, the National Rifle Association pulled their annual national convention from Columbus. Consequently, the City of Columbus lost approximately 20 million dollars in revenue that would have been generated by the NRA annual national convention.

4) Paul McClellan

Colonel Paul McClellan is the current Superintendent of the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP). The position of Superintendent is unelected and the voters have no direct recourse against the OSHP or its political bureaucracy. The OSHP is directly responsible for the ridiculous law that requires concealed weapon license (CHL) holders to keep their firearms in “plain sight” or locked in the glove box while in a motor vehicle. McClellan and the OSHP continue to oppose HB 347, which would remove the “plain sight” requirement from Ohio’s CCW law.
I especially got a good chuckle out of the bolded part in case #5. Sorta like if you don't want to play by my rules, then I will take my ball and go home!!

Too funny!!

Speaking of "disingenousness", how many of you gun toting cowboys vote solely for candidates that support gun rights? High percentage?

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Ten People Who Are Threatening Your Ohio Gun Rights (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3244.html)


I especially got a good chuckle out of the bolded part in case #5. Sorta like if you don't want to play by my rules, then I will take my ball and go home!!

Too funny!!

Translation: I can't support my accusations so I'll resort to stereotypes, red herrings, and personal attacks.

Of course, if a national gay rights (or whatever other cause) pulled their convention from a local that banned gay marriage( or whatever other action opposed the groups purpose) , you would cheer them on.

I don't trust a taser with my life, but maybe you should learn the hard way.

Worst case scenario: one fewer annoying spammer on NSG.

Cripes, did you just openly wish that I'd be killed? Seems a little extreme.

But yes, I don't carry any weapon (even the apparently less-than-useless taser) and I rely on my physical abilities, my brains, and luck to keep me out of danger. If I get attacked, robbed, raped, and/or killed, I'd pretty much have to file that under "That's Life!" It would indeed result in one less person consuming resources on this earth, which is good in and of itself.

This will be the hundredth time I've sourced it on NS.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Oh come on, as if the US Department of Justice is a viable source. Don't you have a link to CNN or CBS? :p :p :p

;)

But yes, I don't carry any weapon (even the apparently less-than-useless taser) and I rely on my physical abilities, my brains, and luck to keep me out of danger. If I get attacked, robbed, raped, and/or killed, I'd pretty much have to file that under "That's Life!" It would indeed result in one less person consuming resources on this earth, which is good in and of itself.

Words fail me...

Cripes, did you just openly wish that I'd be killed? Seems a little extreme.

But yes, I don't carry any weapon (even the apparently less-than-useless taser) and I rely on my physical abilities, my brains, and luck to keep me out of danger. If I get attacked, robbed, raped, and/or killed, I'd pretty much have to file that under "That's Life!" It would indeed result in one less person consuming resources on this earth, which is good in and of itself.
It seems very extreme! And it's not like you're free of danger if you carry a gun, is it? You can still get killed - it's not a magic self-defense tool in itself.

Oh, and Ilie? :fluffle:

Oh come on, as if the US Department of Justice is a viable source. Don't you have a link to CNN or CBS? :p :p :p

;)
It's a good source - it just doesn't say what he wants it to say.

It seems very extreme! And it's not like you're free of danger if you carry a gun, is it? You can still get killed - it's not a magic self-defense tool in itself.


It's not like you're free of getting pregnant/STDs if you use a condom, is it? But it's still better to have one than be without. Especially when you know how to use it right.

It's not like you're free of getting pregnant/STDs if you use a condom, is it? But it's still better to have one than be without. Especially when you know how to use it right.

So you believe that guns are the only way of protecting yourself against... well, anything? Since the alternative was non-lethal protective devices such as a tazer?

So you believe that guns are the only way of protecting yourself against... well, anything? Since the alternative was non-lethal protective devices such as a tazer?

Oftentimes, tazers can be ineffective. Firearms are the most effective way of stopping an attacker.

So you believe that guns are the only way of protecting yourself against... well, anything? Since the alternative was non-lethal protective devices such as a tazer?

Which are less effective, have only one shot, and even many police departments are questioning their use as they have had related deaths as well as them not effecting the target at all.

Ironically, in most places that have the heaviest restrictions on firearms, also ban the carrying of tazers/pepper spray/etc.

It seems very extreme! And it's not like you're free of danger if you carry a gun, is it? You can still get killed - it's not a magic self-defense tool in itself.

Oh, and Ilie? :fluffle:


Goodness, what did I do to deserve that? <3

It's not like you're free of getting pregnant/STDs if you use a condom, is it? But it's still better to have one than be without. Especially when you know how to use it right.

A condom is not a weapon.

A condom is not a weapon.

But it is a tool of self-protection.

A condom is not a weapon.

You could strangle someone with a condom.

You could strangle someone with a condom.

Only if it was a magnum! Unless the person you're strangling is a pencilneck...in which case you probably wouldn't need much in the way of a weapon. :p

Without the firearm laws, Guliani wouldn't be able to go after the criminals. :p

Riiiiiight.
You mock me? :p

Getting Guns Off the Streets, New York City Police Department -- New York, NY (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile19.html)

It is estimated that as many as 2 million illegal guns were in circulation in New York City in 1993. During that year, there were roughly 1,500 gun deaths (20 times the number in 1960) and 5,000 people were wounded in shootings. Ninety percent of the guns seized in New York City that year were originally purchased in other States. In an effort to combat the serious crime plaguing the city, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) developed several crime-fighting strategies. The strategies are based on aggressive policing tactics, with a tough new managerial style that emphasizes both empowerment and accountability at the precinct level.

The NYPD gun strategy uses felony arrests and summonses to target gun trafficking and gun-related crime in the city. NYPD pursues all perpetrators and accomplices in gun crimes cases and interrogates them about how their guns were acquired. In a proactive effort to get guns off the streets, the NYPD's Street Crime Units aggressively enforce all gun laws. In 1996, the Street Crime Units made up one-half of 1 percent of the NYPD, but made 20 percent of all gun arrests. In 1997, their ability to enforce gun laws and make firearm arrests was enhanced by a quadrupling of the number of officers assigned to the program.
And there is much, much more.

Even though this is an older article, it demonstrates why New York homicide rates continue to decline.

You mock me? :p

Getting Guns Off the Streets, New York City Police Department -- New York, NY (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile19.html)


And there is much, much more.

Even though this is an older article, it demonstrates why New York homicide rates continue to decline.

Right. The cops were told to get off their asses and do their jobs. Notice it said "aggressively enforce all gun laws"? Means they weren't doing their jobs before and just blamed other states for thier own incompetance. It also doesn't mean that "Without the firearm laws, Guliani wouldn't be able to go after the criminals." , unless you're trying to say that every crime is committed w/ a firearm.

As for the "trace Data", once again, I have to link you to this:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/175709-2.txt

Of the guns recovered by Project Lead (the ATF/NYPD task force that
seeks to determine the origin of firearms recovered by the NYPD), only
six percent of the recovered guns are traced to point of original sale.
Research by Glenn Pierce et al. has suggested that only two percent of
firearms dealers are accountable for 75 percent of all gun sales, as revealed
by ATF traces. In addition, ATF does not reported multiple sales. Because
of these data deficiencies, while ATF trace data may be useful for law
enforcement purposes, it is not useful for research purposes. While Project
Lead has indicated that Virginia is the major state of original purchase for
firearms recovered in New York City, only two percent of guns associated
with homicide in NYC were originally purchased in Virginia, though ATF
says this picture is changing


And, as usual, you side track to NYC exclusively and continue to ignore that most states in the NE had less restrictive laws than NYC and lower crime rates and still haven't shown any evidence of the S having "less restrictive laws".

So you believe that guns are the only way of protecting yourself against... well, anything? Since the alternative was non-lethal protective devices such as a tazer?

The first consideration in a device for self defense is effectiveness.

A self-defense weapon will ONLY be used in the most extreme case, so its utility is based on the sole criterion of first-shot effectiveness.

There is very little difference in a critical self-defense situation between a weapon that is effective 95% of the time and one that is effective 5% of the time. Only one which approaches 100% will suffice. If it fails, you die.

If a weapon were devised that could stop an attacker more quickly and more effectively than a gun, without killing him, it would be preferable.

Nothing like this exists.

A condom is not a weapon.

Indeed, it is a tool for self-protection, as are firearms. Not everyone with a firearm is a trigger-happy psycopath willing to shoot up a mall.

http://www.a-human-right.com/possum_s.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_allowchoice.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_comeback.jpg

Right. The cops were told to get off their asses and do their jobs. Notice it said "aggressively enforce all gun laws"? Means they weren't doing their jobs before and just blamed other states for thier own incompetance. It also doesn't mean that "Without the firearm laws, Guliani wouldn't be able to go after the criminals." , unless you're trying to say that every crime is committed w/ a firearm.
Perhaps you didn't read the link I supplied or else you wouldn't have replied in such a derogatory manner in regards towards the police force?

In 1996, the Street Crime Units made up one-half of 1 percent of the NYPD, but made 20 percent of all gun arrests. In 1997, their ability to enforce gun laws and make firearm arrests was enhanced by a quadrupling of the number of officers assigned to the program.

As for the "trace Data", once again, I have to link you to this:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/175709-2.txt

Of the guns recovered by Project Lead (the ATF/NYPD task force that
seeks to determine the origin of firearms recovered by the NYPD), only
six percent of the recovered guns are traced to point of original sale.
Research by Glenn Pierce et al. has suggested that only two percent of
firearms dealers are accountable for 75 percent of all gun sales, as revealed
by ATF traces. In addition, ATF does not reported multiple sales. Because
of these data deficiencies, while ATF trace data may be useful for law
enforcement purposes, it is not useful for research purposes. While Project
Lead has indicated that Virginia is the major state of original purchase for
firearms recovered in New York City, only two percent of guns associated
with homicide in NYC were originally purchased in Virginia, though ATF
says this picture is changing
The article you quote looks less than "official", and was prepared in 1998. The 2000 ATF gun crime trace report boasts the tracking of over 87,000 guns.
Also the number of jurisdictions reporting increased over three fold.

It appears that gun enthusiasts seem less than thrilled about supporting such aggressive measures that target illegal guns. I wonder why that is?

Brady Center Report Exposes Gun Lobby/Bush Administration Effort To Hide Truth About Industry Links To Gun Crime (http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/?pagename=release&release=744)

During the Clinton years, ATF released information from its database of crime gun traces showing that thousands of guns move quickly from a relatively small number of licensed gun dealers into the illegal market. For example, ATF trace data showed that only one percent of the Nation’s licensed gun dealers account for almost 60 percent of crime guns. These findings were threatening to the gun industry, by suggesting that the illegal market is supplied not primarily by stolen guns and “street sources,” but by a small number of reckless gun dealers who facilitate gun trafficking through straw purchases, large-volume gun sales and outright corruption.
Interesting indeed.