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.


Mystic Michael

LOL! ;<)


"..but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses", Genghis Khan.

Propaganda needs a reasonably fertile environment to properly influence attitudes and opinions. Without that, it will be met by skepticism. Propagandists need a potent factor - or event- in influencing popular opinion. One example that comes to mind is the severe global recession that accompanied the election of Obama and the rise of the Tea Party - the mother of all factors and events to satisfy a need.. No intellectual truths there - just plain old opportunistic propagandists with a narrow, self-serving attempt to fertilize and plant the field, hoping for a bumper crop of the desired attitudes and opinions.

When it comes to gun control and the Constitution, no one played it better than the Black Panthers. "Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”

Now there's an intellectual truth that doesn't need pro-gun propaganda.


Facts be damned when you have emotion on your side. Twiddle on.


`I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum: `but it isn't so, nohow.'

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'


You get a gold star for that one!


So we've opened our thesaurus while Lannering, which will preclude the scrimshankers from comprehension, in particular from the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars; or quite the opposite, contrariwise.

Michigan could very easily have taken the role of top supplier of guns to other states, but shoot, we weren't locked and loaded when it was time to pull the trigger.


Was this as much to write as it was for me to read? A new word - scrimshankers! I will use it often.


After leave the above post the spam filter was confused; had to check out the words they weren't sure of.

The spam filter installed on this site is currently unavailable. Per site policy, we are unable to accept new submissions until that problem is resolved. Please try resubmitting the form in a couple of minutes.


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent, or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 1824


Some unemotional facts: Did you know the Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive, they'd never pass the NRA Seal of Approval?

"While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls."

A well-regulated right is not a right denied.


"No debate Lan", Wingmaster. Wait just one cotton-pickin' minute. Think about this. The following was the rule of law in colonial times when the 2nd Amendment was written....and the main weapon that was being controlled was a muzzle loaded musket:

* Individual mandate
* Tight restrictions
* Public registration
* Forced inspections
* Forced participation
* Denied gun rights to segments of society

On reflection, I suppose it does put a damper on gun control debate when you realize the founding fathers were actually very serious about controlling guns within society.


Post facts on all of your bullet points in the context to the time they were written then if you want to twist the debate.

Ok, so now we need to go back to all of the amendments written during colonial times and revise because, well for example, we did not have all of this instant free speech before the internet.

It does not say right to bear muskets does it! Dang it, I'm breaking my Lan rule.


It was just a matter of time, Wing.

Look it up - wiki 2nd amendment, colonial times. Besides, George Washington very famously was concerned about the degree of incompetence of some of the militia he led, and advocated for strict controls after a few close calls.

The fact remains that, in terms of the 2nd, societal attitudes and certainly that of the FF's dictated very specific avocation of gun and militia control.


Yes Washington was well aware of the limitations of militia but also was very sure that without their contribution the outcome of the Revolutionary war would have been different.
There you go again with your Lannering. They DO NOT speak to regulating, control the possession of arms in the constitution, the militia yes. Oui vey!


Clearly, they were operating within a specific mindset based on the need for gun and militia control when they spoke to a well regulated militia, because it is the presence of guns that separates a militia from other groups of people with a mission.


Really, so what of Paul Revere? A silversmith who surely owned a gun. Was he part of the militia?


Now there was a man....and a Massachusetts militia officer. Check him out - he was a fascinating person, beyond the simple childhood storybook hero we know him as.


It says "a well regulated militia..." not right. Stop Lannering with the constitution please!


Thank you for the use of "please". You are on your way to becoming not only a constitutional scholar, but a gentleman worthy of the title.


No debate Lan, just more founders wisdom: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." –Thomas Jefferson


Damn that Tom came up with some snappy statements; however I think he would be rendered speechless if he were to live in todays quagmire.

Mystic Michael

Not only that, but he might not appreciate being quoted out of context, with his remarks appropriated to support an argument that they don't fit. Because - yet again, and for the thousandth time already - nobody is talking about "disarming" anybody.

This same straw man keeps popping his head up in virtually every discussion & debate about gun policy that happens. Frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing his face.


Think that's a mirror your looking in!


FYI the US Militia is defined by Federal Statute 10 USC 311:

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



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.