The "BS" shows you can never stoop too low in an effort to sell newspapers.
An eye-catching headline like this is bound to sell some papers:
What difference does it make if that's a completely unsubstantiated claim?
The article, claims that 44% of the guns used in Maryland crimes were from other states, and then continues on to quote various Maryland officials who pat themselves on the back and take credit for the high percentage. Why? Because it clearly shows that Maryland's gun laws are so tough, criminals are going outside the state to buy their guns. Of course they don't take credit for the fact that the majority of guns are still purchased in Maryland. Only politicians have spines so flexible.
But what about that percentage? Turns out, if you actually look at the study(PDF) their story was based on, the facts are oh so different.
The study is based on gun serial number traces. It shows that in Maryland there were 7,517 gun traces (usually by law enforcement) in 2007. Of those, in only 4,397 traces were the ATF able to tell where the gun was originally purchased. Of those, 44% came from a state other than Maryland.
The front page of the study clearly states the following two very important facts the Baltimore Sun doesn't want you to know:
An eye-catching headline like this is bound to sell some papers:
Illicit guns flow into Maryland: In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported
What difference does it make if that's a completely unsubstantiated claim?
The article, claims that 44% of the guns used in Maryland crimes were from other states, and then continues on to quote various Maryland officials who pat themselves on the back and take credit for the high percentage. Why? Because it clearly shows that Maryland's gun laws are so tough, criminals are going outside the state to buy their guns. Of course they don't take credit for the fact that the majority of guns are still purchased in Maryland. Only politicians have spines so flexible.
But what about that percentage? Turns out, if you actually look at the study(PDF) their story was based on, the facts are oh so different.
The study is based on gun serial number traces. It shows that in Maryland there were 7,517 gun traces (usually by law enforcement) in 2007. Of those, in only 4,397 traces were the ATF able to tell where the gun was originally purchased. Of those, 44% came from a state other than Maryland.
The front page of the study clearly states the following two very important facts the Baltimore Sun doesn't want you to know:
- Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.
- 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.
So how does the BS determine that 44% of guns used in Maryland crimes came from other states when we don't know if any of those guns were used in crimes? And even if they were, the study's own authors (ATF) state that they are in no way, shape or form representative of all firearms used in crimes in Maryland.
So what does that mean about the BS' statement of "In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported"?
The Baltimore Sun completely made that up. Why? The only answer I can come up with is that it supports an agenda either the Baltimore Sun and/or reported Annie Linskey has. There can be no other explanation.
Remember that the next time some 'news' source quotes some statistic. In this case, the BS story was absent any details (or even a link to the source). That should always tell you there's something really wrong with what they're telling you and their only option is to hide the truth from you.
So what does that mean about the BS' statement of "In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported"?
The Baltimore Sun completely made that up. Why? The only answer I can come up with is that it supports an agenda either the Baltimore Sun and/or reported Annie Linskey has. There can be no other explanation.
Remember that the next time some 'news' source quotes some statistic. In this case, the BS story was absent any details (or even a link to the source). That should always tell you there's something really wrong with what they're telling you and their only option is to hide the truth from you.
No comments:
Post a Comment