[url]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm[/url]

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or [red]gun show[/red] for fewer than [red]2%[/red]
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about [red]2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.[/red]
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

We should send this to Liberals.

Remember, that 2% includes weapons that were in the trunk of a car or in the house. They don't necessarily have to be involved in the crime or even accessable in order to be included. If they were truthful in how they reported it, the number of these types of weapons used to commit a crime would be almost zero.

Even if we did, most of them would probably ignore the facts, or say we twisted the numbers to be in our favor.

"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to encounter an escaped tiger from the zoo than to confront an assault weapon in the hands of of a drug-crazed killer on the streets..." — Trenton NJ Deputy Police Chief Joseph Constance, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Aug 1993

...and they still passed this purely cosmetic, fvcking up firearms economy and obsolete ban.

Edited because I can't spell

I think we need to get on the NRA, and the GOA to VEHEMENTLY oppose anything that would replace the '94 Crime Bill.

The primary reason?  

[size=4]IT DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE OR AFFECT CRIME[/size=4]


What the hell do we need a law that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING for??  

OK, we see the real problem.  Let's ban families, friends, and streets!  That will do away with 80%.z

I heard that the head of some big police department said about the some thing when they were debating the Assault Weapon ban in California. The anti's were looking for any reason and they could not find any fact to back up their ban of Assault rifles. So they brought in a couple of people who family member who were killed with assault rifles, and that was that. They forgot to state that a lot of the people killed with assault rifles were committing a crime like a drug deal or gang banging.

Don't you guys get it?  They don't care whether criminals use them or not.  They don't want you and me, ordinary Joe Sixpack living in "fly-over country" to own these... they are so afraid we will use these firearms to maintain control of the goverment "of, for, and by the people".

NO WAY!  It can't be true, because in the movies they always show criminals firing from the hip with FA AKs and UZIs.  And just the other day I saw a commercial for a TV show that showed a 'gangsta' blasting away with two MP5Ks...

TV wouldn't lie to me, would it???

My favorite is when the liberal media reports that the perp used a "fully automatic military style machine gun assault rifle, that can be purchased at any gunshow."  Then when they catch the guy he's got a .25 Lorcin.[rolleyes]

That means out of the 15,000 people murdered every year by firearms, a LOW estimate of [b]300[/b] lives are lost to assault weapons. That means 300 fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters gone forever. You cannot justify this loss of life just so you all can have a hobby using weapons particularly suited for criminal misuse.

Yes, but down many of these people killed were killed by law enforcement, how many were killed while conducting an illegal activity (Drug dealer or breaking into a house), how many were killed because of an accident, and how many were really killed as an innocent? The problem with quoting these number is that they are so broad. A cop who does a justified murder is still commiting a murder, it's just not a homicide.

I don't know the numbers, but I imagine that so few innocent people are killed with assault rifles that it would be laughable to even write the law and enforce it. The cost benifit ratio would be so bad that it would be cheaper to give free training to legal owners of assualt rifles and try to take them away from them.

I see your irony, but you've missinterpreted the data.  I did a research project on The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 about a year ago and found the same info that's given in the original post here.  The truth is, that the data shows that less than 2% of all criminals use "assault" weapons in any way, not necessarily for killing.  This means that when John Doe steals 5 dollars from the local stop & rob with a broken Mac-10 or some crap, it gets counted as a crime with an assault weapon.  Same goes with kidnapping, rape, assault, etc...  But the problem is that the data comes from a survey of prison inmates.  They don't necessarily know the difference between a Jennings and an Armalite and everything long with a pistol grip is an AK.  The data is skewed to the right on this one making it look like more crimes are committed than actually are, but it is still an example of how little AW are used.

The more accurate data is that less than 1/2 of 1% of ALL "assault style" weapons (this includes post ban & pre-ban) are used in any type of crime at all.  I forget my source for this info, but can look it up if you like.  I think it might have come from an FBI report in the middle 90's.

Interesting stats. Thanks [b]Rip[/b].

[b]Paul[/b] has an excellent point though - Liberals and their sheeple don't think about guns - they have "feeeeeelings" about them. "What do you feeeeeel about gun control?" How does the ease with which criminals can obtain guns make you feeeeeel?"

So do we continue to use statistics and reason against the tide of knee-jerk emotion or do we start adopting the Liberal's method of going after the sheeple's HEARTS as well as their minds.

One of the best sites I've ever seen that goes after the "hearts and minds" of soccermom-sheeple is [url=http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html]www.a-human-right.com[/url].This is the kind of stuff that needs more exposure.
[url=http://www.flashbunny.org/]www.flashbunny.org[/url] also does good work too.


[b]Muad_Dib[/b], that statistic about how only about 0.5% of all "assault weapons" are used in crimes seems a bit high. I'd guess it's even half of that.

Do you have any info as to how many TOTAL "assault weapons" there are in private possession? I remember seeing somewhere that, for example, Bushmaster [u]produces[/u] over 60,000 AR15s per year. How many wind up in private ownership I don't know but over MANY  decades and MANY other gun companies, I'd guess there are millions of "assault weapons" in private possession now.

The DOJ reports that out of a TOTAL of 533,470 crimes with guns involved, only 2% were with "assault weapons" That's only about 10,670 total crimes committed with "assault weapons". If there are say 5 million privately-owned "assault weapons", that means that only 0.21% of all privately-owned "assault weapons" are used in crimes.

[b]Does anyone have any stats on how many TOTAL "assault weapons" (pre- and post-) there are in private possession??????[/b]

All those stats being thrown out doesn't matter to the anti-gunners, if we save only one life, all of those gun law will be worth it BS.

OT - I think the anti-gun news media has been lurking in the some of the gun boards. I remeber awhile back we had a thread going about "doctors burying their mistakes." In my area KNBC-L.A(a NBC affiliate), did a piece on dangerous doctors recently. I think the liberal news media has no alliagence to anybody, the more it scarces the $hit out of the sheeple the better, to better attract more viewers and sell more newspapers.

Unless those family members were killed with a rifle that had select fire capability, they weren't killed with an assault rifle.

For a while, your so-called sarcasm was funny.  However, it is getting real old.  In fact, I am beginning to believe that you really believe the shit you post and just disguise it as sarcasm to cover your ass.

for God's sake, whatever you do, DON'T LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY!!!!

Imbroglio's post sounds off to me, hope he's just trying to be funny and doesn't really believe taking my AR would save the world. You want to save lives? Ban boos, cars and drugs, kitchen knives and electricity while you're at it.
Imbroglio, You're not a democrat are you?

Good thing I'm not, my distant cousin Teddy would spin in his grave.

Imbroglio, I hope this doesn't resemble you--[:K]
_______________________________________________                
             [%(] FREEEEEEDOOOMMMM!!!!!!!

P.S., if semi automatic "assault" weapons didn't exist, those 300 mothers, daughters and sons would have been dispatched by the next best thing.
Basically the generall idea behind the laws up here in Canada, (and from what I am told by my american brethren) is to slowly disarm the honest citizen, plain and simple, even if some of the bleeding heart poloticians really do believe it's for our own good, it's a calculated gradual dis-armament. Call me paraniod if you will, but just because you're paranoid don't mean they're NOT out to get you.
Why don't they try to outlaw criminals and leave honest folk alone?
Banning firearms is kinda like cutting all the legs of all the horsies after some schmuk got trampled by one.

_______________________________________________

     Got F.A.L.? [X]

And about 90% of the so-called "assault weapons" turn out to be SKS rifles, which are NOT and NEVER HAVE BEEN assault rifles.


"Don't jerk it, let me work it"

It's not sarcasm, and he's not playing the devil's advocate.

He's using the other side's argument in order to force us to think about the best way to combat it and understand it's very essence.  Just look at the responses generated.  

Imbro is quite good at putting a real fine point on the anti's positions and in the process PROVING the fallacy of their arguments.  

Keep it up boy; some of us get you.  

Oh, and the 'some' that get him must be smarter than the rest.

Like I said, it was understandable and humorous at one time.  However, it has gotten to where ALL his posts follow the same line.  It's getting old.  Most of us don't need his 'sarcasm' or whatever the hell it is to see the light.

Well, being the conservative that I am, and hence resistant to change, it simply would not [b]FEEL[/b] correct not having at least one Imbro post in every thread.  

Why are you so charged up about his posts anyway?  Just ignore it and move on if you don't like it.  

Now, I will heed my own advice and move on.