I read the paper, and you’ll forgive me for stating my “gut hunches”, but the paper doesn’t pass the sniff test.
On page 8, the claim that they figured out what ammunition they needed by just buying bullets and seeing what fit is ludicrous. Every gun I have ever seen in my entire life, and every gun I know of made after the 1920’s, has its calibre/ammunition type clearly stamped or engraved on it. And most all ammunition (barring some older ammunition or reloads) has a similar number stamped on it. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with firearms should know this, yet apparently the authors of the study never raise the question. The only reason what they report makes sense is if gang members were pretty much 100.0% illiterate. But even allowing that, even a damn dog can be trained to match “9mm” with “9mm.”
On page 20, the claim that gang bangers who wanted ammunition had to wait “1 to 4 weeks” is ludicrous as well. Even if individual members somehow miraculously could not get 50 miles to Wisconsin, why hasn’t anyone else seen the market opportunity for buying an openly legal, over the counter, untracked item?
Given that the idiot mayor of Chicago has been whinging about how his poor wittle city is the victim of guns flowing like water across the State lines, I have serious doubts about no illegal market existing, especially when the article claims there is a 50:1 markup on the ammunition. It quotes the price for a “Beretta semi-automatic” for $300 - FTR, that’s about a 50% or greater mark-down. Somehow that’s a market, but a 50:1 mark-up on ammunition isn’t?
Think about that - a 50:1 mark-up to drive 50 miles to Wisconsin and buy $20 worth of ammo at a Wal-Mart. No background check needed, no records, no papers, and perfectly legal to carry and have, until you get to the Chicago city limits. A box that fits in your pocket worth $1,000, for 2-3 hours work, perfectly legal in 99% of the country. And no one is making regular runs to leverage this? Really? Really?
The quote on Page 21 seem ludicrous as well - a drug-dealing gun-dealing gang banger doesn’t want to sell ammunition because “Helping someone kill someone else is not what I’m into”. :rolleyes:
That their findings were published in a technical paper in a well-known journal has some, but not much meaning to me. For one thing, it’s a sample size of one. For another, every week I can find a paper published in a scientific journal which essentially says anything about a subject, or which contains some real howlers which made it through the editorial process. Vaccinations cause autism? There’s a paper for that. Indigo children are enlightened old souls? There’s a paper for that. Vitamin X cures/causes/has no effect on cancer? There’s papers for all three cases, I’ll wager.
This doesn’t mean the authors lied or were sloppy, but it may mean they were played and may have little to no actual experience with firearms. I question this paper, as it is contrary to more than 2 decades of experience with firearms use and practice, as well as being contrary to other criminal research I’ve done, and the article seems to set up a metastable ammunition market situation which seems non-sustainable, silly, and stupid. I can’t authoritatively say it’s “wrong” or “junk” but I can say it is prima facie unbelievable to me, and I would need to do quite a bit of my own research with a lot more sample sizes before I’m going to believe it.
I’m not sure I could easily recognize the difference between a semi-automatic pistol being fired very rapidly and an automatic weapon. Some of these example on YouTube sure sound like automatic weapons.
If you have a semi-automatic rifle, then it can sound exactly like an automatic weapon, but I doubt that the average gangbanger would have much chance to practice this technique. As near as I can tell, the guy in this video fired 30 rounds in less than 3 seconds.
If someone makes the assertion “these authors found gravity doesn’t work in Australia” or “the Sydney Opera House is haunted by a ghost drop bear”, I don’t have to fly to Sydney and do my own experiments, nor troll the archives of Nature and Scienceet al , to say that I perceive potential flaws with the theory, and that the findings or assertion do not align with other experience. And of course there is the whole aspect of “extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.”
If the paper doesn’t make extraordinary claims and I state that the authors and paper are wrong or that the paper is junk science, then yes I do need to try to dig up counter-cites if I want to make my case for that. But I and others are not - we’re questioning the findings of the paper as some of the claims within it appear extraordinary.
Further, the good ivn1188, a poster who is known for being good, fact-based poster, seems to be taking criticism of the article a bit personally. Criticism of the paper is not criticism of him or his posting it, and I would ask him to at least consider that even if the paper is 110% on the money and correct, it may represent a set of scenarios which at least appear to be from a bizarro-world, and thus some people are going to raise questions. This may be because I and others are ignorant of the facts, true, but until I can find other confirmation about this odd ammunition availability situation, I remain highly skeptical.
ivn1188 made a claim, and provided a citation to back it up. I did not read the paper because it does not directly address the OP, and it doesn’t support or contradict anything I’ve said (that I know of, from posts derived from it). However, a cite was provided. dzero makes a claim and effectively says, ‘My post is my cite.’ He is arguing against the evidence presented without looking at the evidence. You can see the problem here.
You say that the conclusions are wrong. That may be. I’ve read articles from both sides of the gun control issue over the years, and both sides have presented conclusions that are incorrect. The point is that a claim was made and a cite was provided. When a cite is provided, it can be shown to be correct or incorrect. You read it, and gave reasons why you think it is incorrect. dzero rejects it without reading it. All I’m saying is that if you directly contradict a cite, you should read the cite. And if you make a claim, you should be prepared to cite evidence that others can read.
I don’t think your ghost drop bear analogy fits. (Besides, the Sydney Opera House is ‘haunted’ by a bunyip that hides there. Everybody knows that!) Hauntings are implausible on their face. I lived in L.A. for 17 years, and I know gangsters are able to get guns. I’ve said in this thread that they are able to get some serious weaponry. So the claim that gangs in Chicago find it difficult to obtain guns doesn’t jibe with my experience in L.A. But something being difficult doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Is it even difficult at all to get a gun in Chicago? It seems unlikely to me. But if I were going to argue the point, I’d read the evidence presented instead of saying ‘No, you’re just wrong,’ and I’d be prepared to offer counter citations. dzero did not read the article, nor does he provide cites to back up his claim.
It doesn’t matter if ivn1188’s evidence is correct or incorrect. What matters is that he made a claim and presented the evidence to back it up, and that people here can examine it and point out its flaws. All I’m saying is that when you make a claim and are asked to back it up, you need to present the evidence for all to see.
There is no useful claim being made anywhere. The definition of drug-dealer, as well as other references to gang-bangers and the like, and the definition of availability, affordability, etc., are non-existent in this discussion.
I am guessing here, but the majority of illegal drug dealers are probably small time street runners, and people selling inexpensive drugs for fun and (rarely) profit. Perhaps with some better definitions it would be possible to arrive at some conclusions. They probably live with there mothers, or someone else who pays the bills, and wouldn’t seem likely to be able to afford automatic weapons and ammunition.
Also, can’t recall the details, but a radio talk show host working somewhere in the northwest US several decades ago was killed with a domestically made MAC10 type automatic weapon. Anybody remember who this was, or the details? Anyway, its one to add to some list of homicide by automatic weapon fire, if I have it correct.
That is just plain silly. The Bunyip is aboriginal myth. Most recent sitings are misidentifications of Elwetritschs or Jackalopes brought to a Australia by Europeans or Americans.