Ohio is a top supplier of guns to other states

Gun-control advocates say less-restrictive laws in Ohio led to more than 1,600 weapons being used in crimes in three dozen other states last year.
AP Wire
Jun 23, 2013


Federal data released this week show that 1,601 guns legally bought in Ohio last year were linked to crimes such as robbery and murder in 36 other states.

Another 5,375 guns stayed in Ohio and were linked to crimes in 2012, according a story Friday in The Columbus Dispatch based on the data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The stats show Ohio also was a top contributor to gun-related crime in other states in 2011, with about 1,700 guns showing up in crimes in 38 other states.

Law enforcement and gun-control advocates say it's no surprise.

"People know they can come to Ohio, get a gun and take it someplace where there are tougher restrictions," Columbus Deputy Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell said. "It happens at gun shows in the sticks and through underground schemes on city streets."

New York was the leader in imported Ohio guns being used in crimes last year with 183, according to the ATF stats. Michigan was next at 154, followed by Florida at 152.

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence says the state has too many loopholes for gun ownership that serve as a "beacon" for a gun-trafficking market. The law doesn't require background checks for all gun sales, and the state doesn't keep track of who buys them. Violent misdemeanors, such as domestic violence, don't disqualify someone from making a firearm purchase.

"When you make it easy to get a gun in a state, I mean, it's just common sense that people will go there to get a gun, especially in frequent and large amounts," said Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney for the law center.

But supporters of gun rights contend that there will always be criminals who break the laws, no matter how restrictive they are.



So if gun registration reduces crime, and they were able to track the registered guns to Ohio, I guess that proves gun registration does not work to stop crime! Duh!

How many of these crimes were done by repeat offenders? Bet that would give us a better idea on how to fight crime. Double duh!

Mystic Michael

"But supporters of gun rights contend that there will always be criminals who break the laws, no matter how restrictive they are."

It never ceases to amaze me how hard the defenders of the dysfunctional status quo will work to try to make the perfect into the enemy of the good. 'We will never be able to eliminate gun crimes', their argument seems to go. 'Therefore we shouldn't try to regulate guns at all.'

What's even more frightening is just how seldom this charming little bit of illogic is actually challenged, let alone ever exposed for the extreme simple-mindedness that it really is.

What if we were to apply this same "reasoning" to other types of crimes? For example: 'We will never be able to eliminate sex crimes. Therefore we shouldn't try to prosecute rape.'

If you were a member of Congress, or a member of your state legislature, just try to make an argument like that during floor debate - and see how far it gets you. Yet when guns are involved - and especially once the NRA has spoken, with its campaign contributions, its attack ads, and its high-priced lobbyists - virtually all responsible public policy seems to mysteriously vanish in a haze of half-truths, innuendo, and strangely self-serving interpretations of the Second Amendment.

There are times I do believe we have finally completed the process of deteriorating into an idiocracy...


Well put................thanks


Hey cloudy one, how about some facts:

California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people. Which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and saw 699 total gun murders in 2011 — nearly half that of California — and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000.

In 2011, Utah, the state that the Brady Campaign determined had the least gun control, experienced just 26 gun murders and a firearms murder rate of 0.97. Utah has a population 2.8 million.

The FBI data also notes that Washington, D.C. had the highest murder rate per 100,000 people. The nation’s capital saw 12 gun murders per 100,000 in 2011. DC also finished first in gun-related robberies per 100,000 people – with 242.56. In 1976, the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handguns and required guns at home to be stored and dissembled or locked up. Unfortunately, the draconian measures — which lasted more than three decades — didn’t have the desired effect. Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011

Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011

From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun

In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.

Poof, back to the magic kingdom!


Read the second amendment, please. The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government. The right does NOT come from the government. When will gun control zealots come to grips with the fact that in areas where there IS strict gun control that violent crime rates are HIGHER in those cities (we're talking more than 100,000 people in those cities, like those in the UK, or even our own capitol) than in areas where there are fewer restrictions.

Mystic Michael

And what of this "Militia" to which it refers; which prefaces the phrase about not infringing, and which frames the entire amendment itself? Do you think maybe the Founding Fathers had this very specific purpose in mind when they wrote it?

And how about the qualification that this Militia be "well regulated"? THAT couldn't be any less unambiguous. Do you acknowledge it? Or do find it simply too inconvenient, and you selectively accept ONLY the portions of the Second Amendment that fits your political agenda?


Militia: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

Well regulated militia refers to to citizens you numbskull not the weapons! Whose being political?

Mystic Michael

That's twice you've used insulting personal epithets against me - entirely unprovoked and uncalled for. Are you utterly incapable of articulating an argument, without making it personal and derogatory? Sorry, I'm not interested in joining your ignorant mud fight.

For the record, I do know what a "militia" is. I wasn't asking for a definition, thank you just the same. If you'll actually read my remarks once more, you'll see that I was pointing out that the Founding Fathers had a specific purpose in writing the Second Amendment - and it wasn't just so that every bumpkin between Birmingham and Billings could have his own collection of Uzis and surface-to-air missiles. Get it now?

As for a well regulated militia, how do you regulate a militia - without regulating the firearms that are used by the militia? For your sake, Wing, let's just consider that last one as a rhetorical question - because the answer is: 'You can't'.


Alright fair enough, I'll reserve my sharp tongue for the moment. You come on here and pose as so above the fray with your articulation on points and than make far left "hooks" on what many people believe are accurate interpretations of our constitution. Many find it frustrating and lurk wondering whats next waiting for you or me to take the next swing. I speak for many in the silent majority, sometimes I speak sharp, sometimes not. I guarantee there are many more silently behind me who are adamantly opposed to your views.

Your "Birmingham and Billings" drip of the bias and contempt you have for those country bumpkins you look down on because they have a different values, culture and interest then you. Uzis and surface-to-air missiles...really. You expect me to take you serious in a debate and not offend your sensibilities with that type of inflammatory comment you tend to make then disappear into the mist. Oops, I almost went there, sorry I digress.

There is an answer to a regulated militia, you just don't want it because you know it destroys your point! A well regulate militia IS about how they assemble, how the meet, how they get rations, how they communicate, how they are used. A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized.

How about you focus your energy on the cause of crime not the vehicle of the crime. You will be chasing ghost forever and outlawing the possessions of any object that could be used as a weapon. It always amazes me how you and your ilk want to take rights away from law abiding citizens instead of focusing on the law breakers and how to deal with them. Answer me that without your drippy contempt for those who enjoy owning, using, collecting or possessing legal firearms.

Mystic Michael

I'm not going to waste any more time mincing words with the likes of you. You barged your way into a challenge I presented to Winggirl (are you both from the right Wing family?) to be intellectually honest about the Second Amendment. While essentially ignoring the basic issue I had raised, you then proceeded to wrench the entire debate away from a focus on issues & policy, and turned it into an insult-laden attack, based upon your dislike of me personally.

I find it very telling that neither Winggirl nor you has refuted my basic point: that the Second Amendment guarantees no absolute right to firearms, entirely free of regulation. And that any attempts to ignore that fact is based upon ignorance, upon ideology - or both.

Hate on me all you want. But at the end of the day, all your bluster and all your bravado is no substitute for your conspicuous absence of insight, nor for your apparent inability to make a well-reasoned argument - without bursting a blood vessel.

If you get your hands slapped from time to time due to your habitual incivility and your insistence upon stepping over the line, just consider that it's well deserved. Deal with it.


LOL, Wing got spanked!


Careful where open you big...deal, you might get your beer spilled;-)


You cannot compete in the discussion and resort to your hoity toity position of not talking with the likes of me. Thank you for conceding the arguement as we are no longer debating the subject!

I have been trying to focus the debate on the crimminal element. I sighted what the words in the amendment mean and you blow past and ignore them. Sorry you can't comprehend english. You are the one flailing around, acting offended and basically dodging every one of my challenges to you. You do the same thing with others or just disappear in the willy weeds. Sorry the light makes you so testy but its good for you.

I dislike your holier then thou approach to this topic and others. When you find yourself confounded by someone you look down upon or you are unsuccessful in debating, you get indignate. Tough luck Charlie! Outside of the cocoon you live in there are people that have opinions that are different than yours. If you can't stand the heat of the debate, slither back to the willy weeds.

You are a prime example of why I usually don't back down from sharp tongued attacks with your type because when I do you come out to attack me or people you think I know (winggirl). Takes a low watt bulb to make that connection just because the name include "wing". Still for a moment I backed off and you come back with your hissing reply.

Whatever dude, have it your way as I am tired of educating you as I have done a couple of times in this little exchange. To bad you will just walk away with just a brusied ego instead of retaining the lesson.

deuce liti

Your inability to differentiate "Then" and "Than" and "To" and "Too" offends my general, run-of-the-mill public education. Please be more aware of it. It's hard to take you seriously afterwards.


Ya, I agree with you...have you ever type a long post on a small 2 in. by 2 in. screen that auto fills spelling and go back and try to proof read??

Guess that is the price I pay being connected "too" todays world;-)

I'll do a better job of going back to edit in the future. You'll only have to focus on the points to contest if you don't like them.


The second amendement explicitly states that "the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, shall NOT BE INFRINGED." How does this need clarification?!!!

deuce liti

A historical "strange but true" for you: The 2nd ammendment's reference to bear arms is lost on us today because back then they used to hang stuffed bear arms above the fireplace. They didn't want a bunch of animal rights nuts to take their time-honored tradtion away.

This is all just a big misunderstanding folks!


Well, twice laser induced thermal imaging, the "tradtion" went away when you granola munchers came along. Better study up on your traditions and spelling before you flame someone!


It sounds as though you are the one who is trying to make it ambiguous or tailor it to suit your opinions. The founding fathers wanted the citizenry of this country to be able to protect itself from a tyrannical government. Period. The militia is made of armed citizens, not a professional military. The Bill of Rights is NOT negotiable. We don't pick and choose what is convenient. The second amendment is pretty clear to me.


An ARMED society is a POLITE society. Having to have to jump through all the hoops in this state to get obtain a CPL/CCW is just a scam to get money out of LAW ABIDING NON-FELON TAX PAYING CITIZENS. We are supposedly an "open carry" state but with it comes many restrictions. Believe me if you were to walk into Wal-Mart or Meijer open carrying a firearm you would bring some very negative heat upon yourself. There are several states you DO NOT have to acquire a CPL/CCW to carry a firearm open or not open. As long as you do not have any felonies on your record you can. When is Michigan going to get it?? CRIMINALS DO NOT OPEN CARRY. What part of that is it they do not understand?


Oh Mystic One, riddle me this: You say

It never ceases to amaze me how hard the defenders of the dysfunctional status quo will work to try to make the perfect into the enemy of the good. 'We will never be able to eliminate gun crimes', their argument seems to go. 'Therefore we shouldn't try to regulate guns at all.'

What's even more frightening is just how seldom this charming little bit of illogic is actually challenged, let alone ever exposed for the extreme simple-mindedness that it really is.

What if we were to apply this same "reasoning" to other types of crimes? For example: 'We will never be able to eliminate sex crimes. Therefore we shouldn't try to prosecute rape.

Substitute "Illegal Aliens" for "guns" or "gun crimes" (even without taking into consideration that the Obama NSA spying identifies people rather than objects, as far as we currently know) and are you not saying the same things about guns as many of us are saying about illegal aliens? and giving up by passing amnesty legislation?

Seriously, dude!

Mystic Michael

Let's try to focus, shall we? If you want to make an argument about immigration policy, make it in a thread about immigration policy.

I superimposed a fallacious argument about gun policy onto a different type of criminal justice policy - in order to illustrate the absurdity of the original argument about gun policy. The topic remains "gun policy".


The rape analogy is probably not the wisest path you could have chosen here, unless you are considering cutting off every man's genitals. Of course, you wouldn't consider that because most men aren't rapists.


"...virtually all responsible public policy seems to mysteriously vanish in a haze of half-truths, innuendo, and strangely self-serving interpretations of the Second Amendment"..[Constitution]. Mystic Michael - well said. Let's not just limit it to public safety gun laws. This is the current far right lunacy of the land regarding all types of legislation.

Very simply, there is a segment of our legislative bodies who, while reaping the salary, benefits such as top of the line health insurance, perks, and interest from lobbyists in the form of campaign contributions, are determined to derail government from the act of governing. They are using government to support their rabbit hole view of government while gorging on the proceeds - winners take all. The American people can forage for their own rights.

They, and their masterminds like the Koch Brothers and other super-rich, ALEC and other think tanks, love nothing more than to exacerbate the mood of the people - let's promote anxiety about government, loss of confidence in government, and fear of the future. Balance - negotiation - compromise - agreement - bi-partisanship....no can do. So All-American.

When it comes to describing the process of deteriorating into an idiocracy, just substitute health care, environmental issues, fiscal budgets, or voting rights for gun control. Gun control is just one part of their arsenal.


We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.


Yup, this sounds like an ALEC sound bite from a Jefferson Club member. Join Vlad here... http://www.alec.org/membership/p...


It's actually a socialist quote, biggie, look it up.


Thank you Francis Bellamy, socialist, for writing the Pledge of Allegiance. Vlad - remember when we used to recite this before the start of school during those golden years of education?


A quote is usually attributed to it's author, and not made to look like you came up with it yourself Vladie. Look it up.


Maybe he's only a Washington Club member....



Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.