Here is what the BAD GUYS use!!!

M

martin6

New member
I got my hands on an old issue of Newsweek magazine. The title story was "America Under the Gun" As I predicted it was a series of rather liberal articles promoting gun control. But, one interesting bit of information was a listing of the TOP FIREARMS TRACED TO CRIMES in 1998. Here is their list: #1 S&W .38, 8,096 traces; #2 Lorcin .380, 5,746 traces; #3 Ruger 9mm, 4,594 traces; #4 Raven Arms .25 4,520 traces; #5 N.China Industries 7.62x39, 4,224; #6 Mossberg 12GA., 3,970 traces; #7 S&W 9mm, 3,968 traces; #8 S&W .357, 3,849 traces; and #9 Davis .380, 3,350 traces.
What are your thoughts? Do you feel sufficiantly armed to defend against the most popular BG choices? Why do you think they choose these guns? I thought this was interesting, I look forward to your comments. -martin6
 
Interesting stats. I don't see any so-called assault weapons in there.

I don't arm myself to defend against guns, but people. I don't care what they carry. I'm not going to be shooting their gun, I'll be shooting them.

------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
 
There's no CCW in my state, I carry knives and a flashlight and cell phone instead. No, I don't feel prepared to defend against a BG with a Lorcin--I probably need shooting glasses to protect against flying slide fragments and a field bandage to render first aid for the BG . . . .

:)

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
I think those stat.s are next to useless.
You don't see a rundown of what cars were used in DWI homicides. Even if you did, who cares?!
I would bet that there were zero homicides in 1998 involving a BG using a Webley .455 revolver. I would also bet that there were zero DWI homicides in 1998 involving a drunk driving a 1902 Pierce Arrow.
Is that gun and that car less deadly in the hands of a criminal?

NO!

All those stat's seem to show is that there are many S&W .38's, 357's and 9mm's out there. But, of those 15,913 traces to S&W handguns, what percent is that of the total production of S&W 38/357/9mm handguns?
I can tell you it's a very small portion. There have been something like 8 million M&P .38 revolvers made. (And that number is just the M&P model, not to mention all the other .38 Special S&W revolver models!) Let's say there have only been 1 million 357's and another million 9mm. (I'm intentionally grossly underestimating the number.) So 15,913 divided by 10,000,000. That comes out to about 16 hundreths of 1 percent.

Hmmmm, that's a pretty small number. It's pretty clear to me that the S&W handguns don't go out and kill people by the tens of thousands or millions. Heck, in my opinion it is never the gun that kills, it's the man/woman firing it. Even so, according to Newsweek's numbers 99.84% of all S&W's were not used in "top crimes" in 1998. Granted, not all of those ten million S&W's are still in circulation.
I guess my whole point is that many of the stat.s published in major media are skewed/biased or downright garbage.

This doesn't only apply to firearms. We should take all statistics we see with a grain of salt.
Whether they're about the likelihood of black males becoming criminals, which car seats are dangerous, how many immigrants don't pay taxes, etc.

Unless you see the exact methods of data gathering, who funded the study (researchers like to please those who pay), how the data is organized, sample size, etc. you just can't put a lot of faith in the results.

The only thing I can tell you is that I know of about a dozen S&W handguns that have never, and will never ever be used in a crime.
Other than that, it's a big confusing world.
:D -Kframe

[This message has been edited by Kframe (edited December 07, 1999).]
 
Good posts guys, I agree with most. What I don't understand is where are the "assault weapons" in the listing?
 
A couple of thoughts...

Why do so many people want gun control. Is it because they think bubba is gonna get drunk and go shoot his old lady?

No, it's because they're afraid. Afraid their kids are gonna get capped by some adolescent with raging hormones. Or their co-worker is gonna put a cap up his ass cause he got laid off for not being productive enough. Or just afraid because fear-mongering sells newspapers and tv ads.

Why do so many people on this forum want to get the biggest round they can. Cause they're afraid. Afraid of somebody bustin' into their house at night, or trying to rob 'em on the street. Or just afraid because fear-mongering sells newspapers and tv ads.

Some folks want the cops to take care of the BG, and some folks want to do it themselves.

I want the freedom to have a gun, or six guns, or twenty guns.

But fear is fear, and we all got a little bit of it. The world is not a safe place, and never has been.

End of rant.
 
I blame the media, anyone agree?

------------------
"...you're thinkin was that 5 shots or was it 6? Well, you've gotta ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky??? ...Well, do ya PUNK!?!?
 
Around where I live here in Miami sometimes if you go into some Bars some guys will offer some people "hot" weapons for sale.

I have found the Lorcins/Davies/SW autos and the Taurus/Rossi and SW revolver to be the most common.

Not only because they are more affordable than a Sig or H&K or what have you, but because many of these weapons are usually stolen from vehicles. Most of these gun can be had anywhere from $20.00 to $ 50.00.

Scary...not really. Should all guns be banned...no way.

My solution is very simple. Stay away from the BAD areas and carry whenever feasible. Practice in peace so you are ready for war.

Ariel

[This message has been edited by Ariel 1 (edited December 07, 1999).]
 
Good posts, interesting thread. The stats really don't tell you much of anything useful, but you can infer that those involved are kind of cheap. What would have been useful was in following the trace, determining how many of thoses firearms were stolen.

As has been pointed out time and etime again, it's not the gun, it's the shooter that's responsible for his/her actions. The amok day trader guy in GA used a hammer on his family before he shot up the trading office, yet no one is howling for 'hammer control'.

I think Beretta Boy has a point with the media and the fear mongering. It will be interesting to see what the little SOB in OK has to say about his motivation - I'll bet dollars to donuts that it was some sort of attention ploy, and all the sensationalism associated with school shootings gave him a real good idea on how to get some attention. The other interesting part will be all the whining about what a 'nice' boy he is as his parent try to get him out of trouble, all the yammering for harsh punishment and stiff penalties are for those 'other people's' problem children. So much for swift and sure punishment.
M2
 
I think Joseph makes an interesting point about fear - especially media generated fear. A professor of mine has an article posted on his door which indicates that while, over the last ten years, violent crime has decreased 10-20% in America, media coverage of violent crime has increased 700%.

That supports the idea that the reason many people are pro-ban is that they have been convinved that there is a wave of out of control gun violence in America when that is simply not true.

Beyond that, of all the increase in crime coverage, how much of it has been given over to the fact that the states ejoying the largest reductions in crime are the states which have liberalized their concealed carry laws?

Sadly the media has brought us to edge of abandoning a constitutional right out of fear, just when the evidence is showing that excercising that right really is making us safer.

------------------
"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example. . ." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
If you take a group of statistics such as these what you will REALLY find is that there's a correlation between availability (S&W revolvers - so many in circulation its almost certainly going to be one of the guns most used in crimes) and price (Lorcin) of guns used in crimes. There may also be a correlation between availability, price and concealability, but that's it.

Beyond that, these statistics are meaningless. If we could magically make all Lorcin firearms disappear from the Earth, some other small, cheap readily available firearm would fill its place.
 
I believe if you go back and look a little more carefully, you will see that they don't actually say that these guns were used in the commission of a crime, (they imply it, but they don't say it), only that these were the guns that were TRACED most often. I say TRACED because that is what these are reports of. They are not weapons used in crimes necessarily, they are weapons that traces were done on for any reason, including that they were pawned, and the local LEO did a trace. So this list really is a pos for that does not show what guns criminals prefer, it only shows wepons that were traced. I read the article when it came out, and have seen these same statistics in a couple of other places.You guys who say you didn't see any "assault weapons" in there must have missed the North China Industries (norinco)7.62x39 listing. They don't say whether these were sks or ak variants imported by norinco but these would be the guns responsible for 4,224 TRACES.
 
NOTE:

These statistics are ONLY for guns traced by going back to the manufacturer and doing a forward trace. They do not include tracing at the state or local level nor do they include crime guns for which no trace was ever intiated. The latter includes most older (pre-68) guns, war souvenir guns, and guns that were legally owned by the criminal (common in domestic cases).

What they are trying to do is determine where the street punks get their guns, not what they prefer, which is anything available that will do the job.

Jim
 
From my experience, and from what I have read - and I read ALOT, criminals that use handguns (or firearms) generally pick up what ever they can get their hands on.

This is one of the reasons that I believe in tactics so much. Most of the BGs that want to use guns are punks who just "spray & pray" when they start firing. Of course, that type of shooting can still kill you.

Proper tactics can help you stay alive against the best armed adversary. So DON'T just concentrate on becoming skilled with your weapon of choice... become skilled in tactics also.

I've read Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", about 3 times and I STILL learn from it.

------------------
Stand against evil, lest evil have its way...
 
Mike in VA,
Your last paragraph sums it up prefectly. If we would not have MULLED over every lame detail of the last school shootings, then this creep would not be trying to get attention this way... Maybe if the media would condemn something else, he would have just gone out and gotten a tattoo like most NORMAL kids would when trying to get attention.
and GREAT point Bergie!
Let's keep this thread alive guys, people need to know this stuff, so spread the word. Not just to your gun enthusiast friends, but to those who don't necessarily approve... I'm tired of being looked at like I am part of the trench-coat mafia everytime I speak out against gun control!

------------------
"...you're thinkin was that 5 shots or was it 6? Well, you've gotta ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky??? ...Well, do ya PUNK!?!?
 
So far, the little bastich says "I don't know" why he did it. This is at best a 6th grade response, I thought. Then I remembered he's 13. Christ, some of my students will turn 13 this spring. I am defenseless and so are they. I guess I'll do what all the other teachers do--grit my teeth and hope it doesn't happen while making bad jokes about the possibility.

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
Regarding the last Oklahoma shooting, this is the quote from the Port Gibson police, courtesy of CNN:

"CHIEF RICHARD SLADER, FORT GIBSON POLICE: The gun did belong -- was purchased by the father of the suspect. It is a .9-millimeter Taurus with a high-capacity clip."

Well, so begins the argument to gather up all of the pre-ban hi-cap clips!

Where does the responsibility fall here:

1. The 13 year-old
2. His father
3. The newsmedia
4. The school
5. Wal-mart, where his dad bought the weapon
6. The government
7. Hey, it's an isolated occurance. s**t Happens.

If you ask me, I come down flatly on door #2, the dad.

He was responsible for teaching his son about firearms and their danger, which maybe he had done.

He was also responsible for keeping his firearms locked up tight.

But then again, the kid was supposedly a "best of breed", a good student, went to church, all the right things. And, by the way, he didn't kill anyone. Does that mean he knew how to shoot, and just wanted to wound?

Maybe the dad did do all the right things, and door #7 is the right answer, goaded on by door #3.

But watch for Wal-mart, and the school, and the dad, and who knows who else, to be involved with litigation.

[This message has been edited by Joseph (edited December 09, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top