My question is, aren’t these studies always biased?

I can see Eric Holder already holding his press conference……LOL!

The only way to ensure an objective and unbiased study is to make use of researchers and funding that are both dispassionate and separated from the subject at hand, or at least one that is not attempting to impose their own restrictions/requirements/rules on the situation.

Obviously, this is impossible with an organization as bound up in the gun-control agenda as Joyce Et Al.

If you NEED your gun at home, you are less likely to sell it.

More violence equates to less trafficking because folks in those violent places want to keep their guns….

If you think about the problem, it’s really quite impossible to get an accurate measure of an illegal market. Even for drugs we only really have very rough ideas of the size and magnitude of the market, and rough ideas where drugs are coming from. And the government dumps a hell of a lot more money into studying that than it does the black market in guns.

But of course you believe that the NRA forced the BATFE to include their disclaimer that Trace Data alone cannot be used for statistical analysis.

I think the article explained very clearly what they mean by trafficking. The key is to differentiate between in-state and out-of-state. In other words, Phoenix gun shops are not only supplying Arizona criminals but also those in New York and New Jersey.

As much as I admire the efforts of those who turn these statistical assaults on their originators, I feel we lose a little every time liberty is reduced to cost/benefit analysis.

Should a million souls perish in a year due to others’ misuse of their freedom, that would be no argument for depriving me of mine. I do not question its source. The Creator must have had something in mind.