of course, dumbass. I posted the link. lolNow, let's walk through this together:Your idiot claim is that gun violence stems from law abiding gun owners.
Which it does:
Law-abiding gun owners sell their guns via straw purchases to shady people. That's one way guns end up in the hands of criminals. The other ways, as you pointed out, all seem to have their genesis from "responsible gun owners". Meaning that a gun owner legally purchased a firearm, then sold that firearm to someone shady via straw purchase or "family transfer" or whatever, and then the gun gets used in crimes.
Nearly all guns in the hands of criminals were once legally-purchased guns.
First of all, when you make a claim like this, you're implying that ALL sources of illegal firearms stem from the homes of lawful gun owners.
I never said that. I said most do. Which is true. Even using your shady link, from a one-time ATF agent, belies that the majority of illegal guns were stolen, sold, or transferred to criminals by "responsible gun owners". There are commercial thefts, sure, but those thefts are outnumbered by thefts from homes/cars. Even 10-15% is
too much risk. Nice straw man, though.
Now, I realize that you're a constitution hating sociopath, but that doesn't excuse your shitty comprehension skills. ALL illegal firearms do not stem from the homes of lawful gun owners. As a matter of fact, the percentage of firearms stolen from lawful gun owners, isn't even close to what the primary sources are. So can you channel your idiot focus back on the article and tell me what that percentage actually is?
First of all, your link says that 10-15% of gun crimes are used with stolen guns from people's homes and cars, but that's just the opinion of one ex-ATF agent. But you're not counting the guns that are stolen and then
sold via straw purchasers to criminals. That total is absent from your article. So you don't really have a conclusion that's worth forming because your data set is incomplete. Secondly, those totals were
estimates by this one guy. And the data isn't sourced in what you linked to, which means I have to take his word for it. And why should I?
In fact, here's what your link says about straw purchasing:
A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.
How does one illegally acquire a firearm to sell in a straw purchase?
BY STEALING IT, DUH!
So you're trying to say that a criminal armed with a gun they got via straw purchase doesn't count toward the gun theft total, even though in order for the gun to be sold via straw purchase, it was likely acquired illegally (AKA STOLEN).