http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/06/nearly-half-hawaiis-guns-come-state/

Interesting data but I don't get the point of the news.

So what?

 I think the key phrase here is "gun traces authorities ran while investigating crimes."

In Hawaii, authorities ran traces on 105 guns in 2012, finding that 50 — or 47.6 percent — were originally purchased outside of the state.

Fifteen of those guns, the largest share, came from California.

Raw, disconnected statistics. 

First of all, we should always be suspicious when someone leads a story with ratios and percentages instead of the raw underlying numbers.  This is a typical tactic which makes a stat sound bigger than it really is (66% of our employees are women, versus  We have 3 employees, and 2 are women).

Secondly, do these numbers actually mean anything useful? Since most guns traced in a criminal investigation were originally purchased out of state, what do we conclude?  Will banning guns being brought in from California reduce the number of guns traced from out of state by fifteen, or 30 percent?  Should we add another layer of "qualifying hoops" to jump through for people moving from California?  Should we require all guns originally purchased in California go through a longer waiting period or place their owners on a special "watch list?"  Of course not.

Lastly, this story doesn't say these guns were actually used in a crime, only that they were traced in the course of an investigation.  The owner could have been arrested for dangerous driving and a firearm was found in the car.

These reports may be interesting to some, but I think too many use this kind of raw data and any conclusions they concoct to support an existing agenda.

Raw, disconnected statistics. 

First of all, we should always be suspicious when someone leads a story with ratios and percentages instead of the raw underlying numbers.  This is a typical tactic which makes a stat sound bigger than it really is (66% of our employees are women, versus  We have 3 employees, and 2 are women).

Secondly, do these numbers actually mean anything useful? Since most guns traced in a criminal investigation were originally purchased out of state, what do we conclude?  Will banning guns being brought in from California reduce the number of guns traced from out of state by fifteen, or 30 percent?  Should we add another layer of "qualifying hoops" to jump through for people moving from California?  Should we require all guns originally purchased in California go through a longer waiting period or place their owners on a special "watch list?"  Of course not.

Lastly, this story doesn't say these guns were actually used in a crime, only that they were traced in the course of an investigation.  The owner could have been arrested for dangerous driving and a firearm was found in the car.

These reports may be interesting to some, but I think too many use this kind of raw data and any conclusions they concoct to support an existing agenda.

 
     Really have no idea what the author is trying to say here ..... do not see a clear conclusion.    Let alone a misleading title "Nearly Half of Hawaii’s Guns Come From Out of State"  I think all of our guns came from other places right ? (since I am not aware that we have some type of gun manufacturing business here, I meant from raw aluminium blocks to make barrels/upper & lower).

Firearms, food, clothes are imported. The bigger question is what IS produced here in Hawaii nei?

Firearms, food, clothes are imported. The bigger question is what IS produced here in Hawaii nei?

OGC is selling AR-15 lower receivers with their brand.  Those are the only ones I've seen manufactured and sold commercially here in the last couple of years.

The lowers also had a limited first edition run of 50 units.

Firearms, food, clothes are imported. The bigger question is what IS produced here in Hawaii nei?

Yes, that would have been a more interesting news topic but not as aligned to their agenda.  What is produced in Hawaii?  Mac nuts, coffee and water.  Anything else, really?

Pandering to the anti gun agenda.
The data is meaningless, the fact that half of the guns that were traced [ for what reason we don't know ] were found to be from out state tells us nothing.
Were the guns legally registered?
Were they used in a crime?
Were they sent here via an FFL licensee, or were they smuggled here illegally?
Were they just being traced to verify ownership?

Just a few of the questions this dolt and his pinhead editor should've asked and answered before this article was printed.

Saw this piece mentioned on KITV4 news today.  Not really sure what the point of the news piece was about.

Here's a fun fact - 100% of the cars involved in accidents last year were shipped here.  Absolutely pointless article.

I read that people living today have a greater risk of dying than any other group...

        

This just in: over 95% of Hawaii liberals are complete idiots.

This just in: over 95% of Hawaii liberals are complete idiots.

More than half of those liberals can be traced to Kalifornia.   

Raw, disconnected statistics. 

^^^^^This. Another xample of this kind of thing is this headline: "Epidemic: Guns kill twice as many kids as cancer does"

Wow, sounds pretty bad.  But, in reality, cancer is pretty rare in children.  So, are gun deaths.  These type of statistics are often used by anti-gun people to try and score a political point.

Things that are red are not green over 95% of the time!

The point of publishing the statistic is not stated in the report so it does appear rather meaningless. However, consider  the message conveyed by innuendo to the average consumer. It may go a little something like this:

1.  Nearly half the guns used in Hawaii gun related crimes come from other states;
2.  We have too many gun related crimes in the State of Hawaii;
3.  Preventing guns from coming into Hawaii from states would reduce Hawaii gun related crimes by nearly 50%.

Not saying the conclusion is correct. Just saying that the ordinary consumer may reach this conclusion.

Willful ignorance is a powerful thing.