Caltrops - Dead Trees





	[quote name="Senor Barborito"]Boiling down your argument to the only points I have to knock out to bring the whole thing toppling down like so many dominos: [quote name="Lizard_King"] [quote]During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun. [/quote] All your 5/6 stat is talking about is ownership of guns, irrespective of the nature of the crime committed. So don't pretend its the conclusive statement you make it out to be.[/quote] Don't play semantic headgames with me. 1. Page 1, FIRST PARAGRAPH <b>An estimated 18% of State prison inmates and 15% of Federal inmates reported using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during the crime for which they were sentenced. In 1991, 16% of State inmates and 12% of Federal inmates <u>said they were armed at the time of their offense</u>.</b> Please note that 1991 is a second set of data, 1997 is the examined set of data from which the 18 and 15% statistics - and the corresponding 83% and 87% statistics for handguns - are drawn. 2. Page 3, left column inset - "Percent of inmates carrying a firearm during current offense" 3. Page 3, in the text of the left column: "Inmates reported that a handgun was their preferred firearm: of those carrying a firearm, 83% of State inmates and 87% of Federal inmates said that they carried a handgun during the offense for which they were serving their longest sentence." That's <i>just</i> during their longest sentence, mind. 4. Page 10, Table 13 <b>The Final Clarification Is Here</b>. This table makes a distinction between 'possessed' and 'used' and clarifies what percentage were using and were just possessing. Unfortunately, it excludes criminals with multiple sentences, such as those tacked on for carrying a firearm during an offense - I don't see any other way to account for the discrepancy between the statistics on this table and the others unless possessed means 'carried but did not use.' The following tables helps explain why this is so: 5. Page 11, Table 14 - Difference between 'usage' types explained here. Finally, the killing blow: 6. Page 11, text of left column "about 1 in 20 and 1 in 10 Federal inmates <b>regardless of type of offense</b> said they possessed a firearm but did not use it." That would be game, set, and match. Now admit it - 85% of all gun crime is handguns. The language of the report very clearly indicates that this is the case in the text as well. I think handguns would be great if they weren't so damned useful for criminals, but they are, and there are plenty of better ways to defend yourself available for most situations if you don't want to go through the paperwork (and loss of search warrant rights) of a Class II license. Losing your freedom from search is not a big deal, either - the FBI can enter your home at any time without a warrant as of the time of this writing so such a freedom is illusory anyway. [quote][quote]First off 40% of handguns can be pushed out from possession by anyone who isn't willing to tolerate police inspections via legal methods (see that page I linked). The other 60% will have to be cleaned up via sharply increased handgun-specific penalties. [/quote] Bullshit. One, this 60/40 of yours, while plausible, is only part of the story when it comes to the actual crimes being committed (as I pointed out above). Two, the only way that 60% you so daintily toss aside will be dealt with is with Giulianiesque "brownshirting", which seems an unacceptable solution to you. Already we are looking at significant extra penalties for ANY firearm use; much like hate crimes legislation, all your focus provides is a symbolic victory with little effect on actual crime. [/quote] You need to go beyond hate crime penalties and get criminals to think of handgun crime as equivalent to first-degree murder in how much they'll pay for it, for one. Secondly, from that DOJ PDF (the fuo one), the overwhelming majority of guns used in crime are made in the last three years. It will take about three years to start seeing serious results from such a move, but it will happen. In order for that 80/20 stat you cite to become my 60/40 yes, one would need to start requiring current handgun owners to license their currently owned weapons, yes. I don't like it but with 40% of handguns for crime being 'borrowed' a grandfathering clause seems rather stupid. [quote]And don't knock Glocks on the basis of wholly subjective "don't feel right" opinions. They involve trade-offs, sure. But they are the only handguns that you can clean fully in 2 minutes flat with minimal practice, operate with a minimum presence of user error, and not have your pants fall down due to their weight. And since you like statistics so much, talk to the millions of law enforcement officers that use them as their primary weapon. [/quote] Odd, I thought the difference between law enforcement and the military was that as a result of the XM9 trials for the new official sidearm (the Colt 1911 successor) the military went with the Beretta 92F and law enforcement largely side with the SIG P226 - and the military lost because the resulting M9s (their designation for the Beretta 92FS) had a frequent problem until later production runs with the slide literally popping off and into the user's face during firing. I knew the Glock 17 was becoming more popular in law enforcement but I wasn't aware it was anywhere near the 'millions' stage yet. --SB[/quote]