New Findings From FBI About Cop Attackers & Their Weapons

[Geezah]

I. New Findings From FBI About Cop Attackers & Their Weapons

New findings on how offenders train with, carry and deploy the weapons they use to attack police officers have emerged in a just-published, 5-year study by the FBI.

Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be cop killers:

--show signs of being armed that officers miss;

--have more experience using deadly force in "street combat" than their intended victims;

--practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;

--have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. "If you hesitate," one told the study's researchers, "you're dead. You have the instinct or you don't. If you don't, you're in trouble on the street...."

These and other weapons-related findings comprise one chapter in a 180-page research summary called "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers." The study is the third in a series of long investigations into fatal and nonfatal attacks on POs by the FBI team of Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, clinical forensic psychologist, and Ed Davis, criminal investigative instructor, both with the Bureau's Behavioral Science Unit, and Charles Miller III, coordinator of the LEOs Killed and Assaulted program.

"Violent Encounters" also reports in detail on the personal characteristics of attacked officers and their assaulters, the role of perception in life-threatening confrontations, the myths of memory that can hamper OIS investigations, the suicide-by-cop phenomenon, current training issues, and other matters relevant to officer survival. (Force Science News and our strategic partner PoliceOne.com will be reporting on more findings from this landmark study in future transmissions.)

Commenting on the broad-based study, Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, called it "very challenging and insightful--important work that only a handful of gifted and experienced researchers could accomplish."

From a pool of more than 800 incidents, the researchers selected 40, involving 43 offenders (13 of them admitted gangbangers-drug traffickers) and 50 officers, for in-depth exploration. They visited crime scenes and extensively interviewed surviving officers and attackers alike, most of the latter in prison.

Here are highlights of what they learned about weapon selection, familiarity, transport and use by criminals attempting to murder cops, a small portion of the overall research:

Weapon Choice

Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun "because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being."

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Familiarity

Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing "most of the time." Gang members especially started young.

Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% "regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year," the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and "street corners in known drug-trafficking areas."

One spoke of being motivated to improve his gun skills by his belief that officers "go to the range two, three times a week [and] practice arms so they can hit anything."

In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this "may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills," the study says.

The offender quoted above about his practice motivation, for example, fired 12 rounds at an officer, striking him 3 times. The officer fired 7 rounds, all misses.

More than 40% of the offenders had been involved in actual shooting confrontations before they feloniously assaulted an officer. Ten of these "street combat veterans," all from "inner-city, drug-trafficking environments," had taken part in 5 or more "criminal firefight experiences" in their lifetime.

One reported that he was 14 when he was first shot on the street, "about 18 before a cop shot me." Another said getting shot was a pivotal experience "because I made up my mind no one was gonna shoot me again."

Again in contrast, only 8 of the 50 LEO victims had participated in a prior shooting; 1 had been involved in 2 previously, another in 3. Seven of the 8 had killed offenders.

Concealment

The offenders said they most often hid guns on their person in the front waistband, with the groin area and the small of the back nearly tied for second place. Some occasionally gave their weapons to another person to carry, "most often a female companion." None regularly used a holster, and about 40% at least sometimes carried a backup weapon.

In motor vehicles, they most often kept their firearm readily available on their person, or, less often, under the seat. In residences, most stashed their weapon under a pillow, on a nightstand, under the mattress--somewhere within immediate reach while in bed.

Almost all carried when on the move and strong majorities did so when socializing, committing crimes or being at home. About one-third brought weapons with them to work. Interestingly, the offenders in this study more commonly admitted having guns under all these circumstances than did offenders interviewed in the researchers' earlier 2 surveys, conducted in the 1980s and '90s.

According to Davis, "Male offenders said time and time again that female officers tend to search them more thoroughly than male officers. In prison, most of the offenders were more afraid to carry contraband or weapons when a female CO was on duty."

On the street, however, both male and female officers too often regard female subjects "as less of a threat, assuming that they not going to have a gun," Davis said. In truth, the researchers concluded that more female offenders are armed today than 20 years ago--"not just female gang associates, but female offenders generally."

Shooting Style

Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, "claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights," the study says.

"They practice getting the gun out and using it," Davis explained. "They shoot for effect." Or as one of the offenders put it: "[W]e're not working with no marksmanship....We just putting it in your direction, you know....It don't matter...as long as it's gonna hit you...if it's up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever....Once I squeeze and you fall, then...if I want to execute you, then I could go from there."

Hit Rate

More often than the officers they attacked, offenders delivered at least some rounds on target in their encounters. Nearly 70% of assailants were successful in that regard with handguns, compared to about 40% of the victim officers, the study found. (Efforts of offenders and officers to get on target were considered successful if any rounds struck, regardless of the number fired.)

Davis speculated that the offenders might have had an advantage because in all but 3 cases they fired first, usually catching the officer by surprise. Indeed, the report points out, "10 of the total victim officers had been wounded [and thus impaired] before they returned gunfire at their attackers."

Missed Cues

Officers would less likely be caught off guard by attackers if they were more observant of indicators of concealed weapons, the study concludes. These particularly include manners of dress, ways of moving and unconscious gestures often related to carrying.

"Officers should look for unnatural protrusions or bulges in the waist, back and crotch areas," the study says, and watch for "shirts that appear rippled or wavy on one side of the body while the fabric on the other side appears smooth." In warm weather, multilayered clothing inappropriate to the temperature may be a giveaway. On cold or rainy days, a subject's jacket hood may not be covering his head because it is being used to conceal a handgun.

Because they eschew holsters, offenders reported frequently touching a concealed gun with hands or arms "to assure themselves that it is still hidden, secure and accessible" and hasn't shifted. Such gestures are especially noticeable "whenever individuals change body positions, such as standing, sitting or exiting a vehicle." If they run, they may need to keep a constant grip on a hidden gun to control it.

Just as cops generally blade their body to make their sidearm less accessible, armed criminals "do the same in encounters with LEOs to ensure concealment and easy access."

An irony, Davis noted, is that officers who are assigned to look for concealed weapons, while working off-duty security at night clubs for instance, are often highly proficient at detecting them. "But then when they go back to the street without that specific assignment, they seem to 'turn off' that skill," and thus are startled--sometimes fatally--when a suspect suddenly produces a weapon and attacks.

Mind Set

Thirty-six of the 50 officers in the study had "experienced hazardous situations where they had the legal authority" to use deadly force "but chose not to shoot." They averaged 4 such prior incidents before the encounters that the researchers investigated. "It appeared clear that none of these officers were willing to use deadly force against an offender if other options were available," the researchers concluded.

The offenders were of a different mind-set entirely. In fact, Davis said the study team "did not realize how cold blooded the younger generation of offender is. They have been exposed to killing after killing, they fully expect to get killed and they don't hesitate to shoot anybody, including a police officer. They can go from riding down the street saying what a beautiful day it is to killing in the next instant."

"Offenders typically displayed no moral or ethical restraints in using firearms," the report states. "In fact, the street combat veterans survived by developing a shoot-first mentality.

"Officers never can assume that a criminal is unarmed until they have thoroughly searched the person and the surroundings themselves." Nor, in the interest of personal safety, can officers "let their guards down in any type of law enforcement situation."


Link (http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62”)

....................

I just realized this is in Military History and Tactics, I must have had a blond moment and posted it here by mistake:(

[English]

Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

[onefast93z28]

Good read, I've heard tons of horror stories about bad guys having back-ups and that some Officers stop searching once they find one weapon. Most of the LEOs I know will conduct their own search of a perp if they were called to transport them.

[raph_g]

very interesting read indeed. assaulting an officer is never a good idea

[DeadMeatXM2]

Weapon Choice

Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun "because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being."

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Its a shame rb is still banned (I think) these stats do well to disprove the BS "get rid of legal guns and you get rid of the problem" theories.

Good read, hopefully the LEA's will take note and adjust accordingly.

[cover2]

The thing about this study is that I'm sure these thugs don't know from where the guns originally came. When I lived in NYC, there was a big expose in one of the big newspapers about where perps get their guns. Yeah, they buy them on the street, illegally. But, WHERE DO THE GUN DEALERS GET THEM? The answer, at that time, was OH, KY, and other states in the midwest that had more relaxed gun laws. At that time, you could stroll into a gun shop in such states with a drivers license and leave with 3 or four guns. Sometimes, these were handguns, other times, assautl weapons such as the carbine-type Uzi, AK, etc. A gun dealer would drive out there, buy a bunch, and bring them back. Sell a .25 that cost $150 for $500 on the street, take a $700 Ar 15 and sell it for $2500. At those markups, a lot of people started doing it. Not sure how current gun laws have changed any of this, if at all.

Where do these thugs practice, by the way? Go to the local range? I live in Baltihole, sometimes murder capital of the USA, and I can't imagine where these guys do their practice shooting, other than shooting each other. I realize most cops don't practice much/enough, but it's hard for me to believe that these guys are practicing combat, jumping around through Hogan's Alleys and doing cartwheels while shooting like Mel Gibson. Oh, and here in Baltihole, my cop friends told me that thugs don't often carry guns, but instead stash them in their AO's behind loose bricks, dumpsters, etc, where they are relatively accessible but not on their person.

On another note, I highly recommend the book "Into the Kill Zone" by David Klinger, an ex-cop himself who is now a sociologist. He interviewed around 200 officers who were involved in shootings or were in situations where they could have fired but chose not to. It's basically just a bunch of vignettes of their stories, and is a fascinating read.

[Geezah]

^Any chance you could qualify your statement, as we here in Ohio recognise Federal law, not some stupid home rule similar to NYC?

[justagoodolboy]

The thing about this study is that I'm sure these thugs don't know from where the guns originally came. When I lived in NYC, there was a big expose in one of the big newspapers about where perps get their guns. Yeah, they buy them on the street, illegally. But, WHERE DO THE GUN DEALERS GET THEM? The answer, at that time, was OH, KY, and other states in the midwest that had more relaxed gun laws. At that time, you could stroll into a gun shop in such states with a drivers license and leave with 3 or four guns. Sometimes, these were handguns, other times, assautl weapons such as the carbine-type Uzi, AK, etc. A gun dealer would drive out there, buy a bunch, and bring them back. Sell a .25 that cost $150 for $500 on the street, take a $700 Ar 15 and sell it for $2500. At those markups, a lot of people started doing it. Not sure how current gun laws have changed any of this, if at all.

Where do these thugs practice, by the way? Go to the local range? I live in Baltihole, sometimes murder capital of the USA, and I can't imagine where these guys do their practice shooting, other than shooting each other. I realize most cops don't practice much/enough, but it's hard for me to believe that these guys are practicing combat, jumping around through Hogan's Alleys and doing cartwheels while shooting like Mel Gibson. Oh, and here in Baltihole, my cop friends told me that thugs don't often carry guns, but instead stash them in their AO's behind loose bricks, dumpsters, etc, where they are relatively accessible but not on their person.

On another note, I highly recommend the book "Into the Kill Zone" by David Klinger, an ex-cop himself who is now a sociologist. He interviewed around 200 officers who were involved in shootings or were in situations where they could have fired but chose not to. It's basically just a bunch of vignettes of their stories, and is a fascinating read.

This doesn't explain the gun crime rate. If everyone was leaving town to buy guns, why isn't gun crime as high in those places? In Washington D.C., they have a total ban on handguns, where as right across the river in Alexandria, Va, with the rather liberal carry laws, the homicide rate is almost approximatley 10 times lower. Gun control laws have no effect at all on crime.

[winslonia]

don't states have different limits on time to prosecute offenders of LEO ' s see (melvin reines case / capecod )http://www.capecodonline.com/special/reine/2002court18.htm

[gaijinsamurai]

Very interesting. Thanks, Geezah.

[Roaming East]

I know for a fact gangbangers actually 'train' alot with their firearms. Or are at the very least very proficient with there use. At one of the local gun ranges i frequent, you often suddenly get the 'suspect' crowd roll in and fire off a few hundred rounds every other month.
I think police get caught in the myth that all these hoods are pistol tilting homies and not actually taking them as seriously as they should.

[cover2]

^Any chance you could qualify your statement, as we here in Ohio recognise Federal law, not some stupid home rule similar to NYC?


Well, the expose was a while ago while I lived in NY. It was probably just before the 10 day or two week waiting period was put into effect. Around 1990? It was a while ago. But I think it could still be done with long guns, no? As there is no waiting period for them. Notice that, in my original post, I said "at that time" and that "I don't know how current laws have changed that". Way to read only what you wanted to.

In any case, where do people think criminals get their guns? I'm really curious to know.

Also, to the person who agreed that these "bangers" train a lot at ranges, don't the ranges have rules that you have to show a permit when you arrive? Or can anybody just show up with a gun from anywhere and start shooting?

[cover2]

This doesn't explain the gun crime rate. If everyone was leaving town to buy guns, why isn't gun crime as high in those places? In Washington D.C., they have a total ban on handguns, where as right across the river in Alexandria, Va, with the rather liberal carry laws, the homicide rate is almost approximatley 10 times lower. Gun control laws have no effect at all on crime.

You just illustrated my point. People can go across the river to VA, buy their guns, then bring them back. They bring them back to their neighborhoods where the law abiding citizens are not armed. Hence all the crime. That's why bans on handgun sales in big cities make no sense, b/c the guns just come in from outside.

[SOG]

change the people, not the laws. people are letting circumstances dictate their purpose.

ban guns everywhere and stabbings will skyrocket along with viscious beatings.
getting rid of guns will solve societal violence thats has been around for how many thousands of years? hardly.

until you empower the impoverished you will have larger than life problems. the assholes running those cities would rather use a scapegoat such as the gun industry to push voter agenda then deal with the real issue. sadly citizens also see fit to vote for the same assholes. who is the biggest ticket? place your votes for # 1 or 2. if you dont your side will lose! thus the circle of pain continues.

guns are not the solution nor the problem. they are a strong diversion pulling attention away from a failed system. just like "switchblades". "because the blade pops out makes it easier for concealment." yeah, because i have trouble concealing a 5 inch stick on my 6'3 frame. MY ASS. switchblades went away and... nothing changed. ****tards.

[Geezah]

Well, the expose was a while ago while I lived in NY. It was probably just before the 10 day or two week waiting period was put into effect. Around 1990? It was a while ago. But I think it could still be done with long guns, no? As there is no waiting period for them.

Again, as you mentioned Ohio,I will repeat myself, here in Ohio we recognise Federal law, not some frucked home rule like NYC.

In order for homie the clown to purchase a firearm in Ohio, if he is out of State he would need to get it transfered through an FFL in his State. There is no way he is walking into an above board gun store and buying a handgun.Now boardering States like Indiana for example are good to go on long arms, but they must still pass the instant background check and fill out Form 4473.



Notice that, in my original post, I said "at that time" and that "I don't know how current laws have changed that". Way to read only what you wanted to.


That's all well and good, but when you give no indication as to what time period you are refering to, it's pretty hard to understand what you are talking about!?

[cover2]

So again, I ask, where do the guns come from?

[Group9]

They miss the most important characteristic of cop-killers: they are almost always psychopaths, which gives them quite the advantage in that they do not have any of the normal aversions to taking human life that the rest of us do.

[SOG]

So again, I ask, where do the guns come from?

they come from everywhere. from all states, legal shops, smugglers, makers, other countries, THEFT, you name it. but why ask why when your why is a moot point?

[22.5degrees]

Cover2,

Can you confirm that the firearms being purchased and used are indeed "assault weapons"? I can assure you they most likely are not. A TRUE assault weapon is one of intermediate calibre(5.56x45, 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 the uzi you list is considered a SUB machine gun or sub calibre firearm, it fires the 9x19mm cartridge)usually being a shortened version of a larger model, such as the M4/AR15. Most importantly it must be SELECT FIRE. Meaning capable of semi and full automatic fire. No where in the US can you legally purchase a SELECT FIRE firearm off the shelf and walk out the door. On a side note, the Sheriffs department in L.A. Ca. released a report about 4 years ago indicating that not one firearm that they had confiscated off criminals was ever manufactured or converted to full auto. My point? The firearms being used ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS!!! The term is another buzz word being used by those who have no f*cking idea what they're talking about. The term scares people which in turn gets their attention and their support; mostly women. I'll look for the article. Another fine article(which I believe was posted here on MP.net) illustrated current numbers from CDC that the number of children killed by unauthorized access to firearms in the US was 54 in a one year period. The number of children who drowned in the bathtub while unsupervised was nearly 1400 for the same time period. Looks like the "million moron" march was more about pushing someones agenda and political career than addressing real issues.

As usual in todays high speed low drag environment, the average joe tends to get their facts from the local newspaper, T.V. station or word of mouth. Both T.V. and newspapers are in business to do business. I'm not saying there's absolutely no truth in the media. I'm simply saying that selling the truth and the complete truth is not always what sells. This being the case most folks take the ****e they see on T.V. or read in the daily rag as gospel. Then proceed to regurgitate it verbatum as if they had spent many hours researching their answers. The other source is really no source at all. The information being spewed by fellow citizens is usually nothing more than a larger perverted game of telephone; and we all know how that one ends.

People on the whole have no idea what the real issues are. They don't want to know and more importantly they don't want to spend the time to know. Current society is far too busy prying into some fabricated hollywood stars life or enjoying some "reality T.V." where they can live vicariously through the characters. For others, there time is best spent looking good in the local clubs and ignoring the outside world altogether, just as long as they have their night life. The current rage that seems to hit all demographics is the electronic age. Almost everyone I see on the street is plugged into their iPOD and tuned out of reality. Some watch movies, some listen to music, some play games. In any case the amount of de-socializing is on an upward climb, and fast! This makes society ripe for the picking when it comes to media influence.

This is just my take on it. You can take it anyway you like. Just don't be surpised when to find out that the media, and/or your gov't have been or are lying to you for their own personal gains.

22.5

[~center~]

Here's the answer as to where do those guns come from?

The expensive one's i.e. Glocks, SIG's, Colts, etc. are stolen most of the time. Homey the clown can't just go into a gun store and fork out $800 and pass a background check to get that chromed out Desert Eagle 44 mag.

The reality is:

"Assault weapons" are involved in less than 1% of firearm incidents. In fact there has only been 1 homicide in the U.S. with a legally owned machinegun and the offender in that crime was a police officer. BTW "assault weapons" are regulated buy the ATF and subject to the NFA. Just because California want's to call my Mini-14 with a pistol grip an "Assault Weapon" doesn't make it one. If I say 2+4=8 does that make it true? Hardly.

Semi-auto rifles, i.e. your UZI Carbine's, Colt AR-15, FN FAL's and such, are even more expensive than most good pistols and invlolved in less than 5% of crimes envolving firearms. These are also mostly stolen.

The final category are the "saturday night specials" and "junk guns" which doesn't necessarily mean there crappy guns, just cheap guns. These are easier to get simply because they are affordable and widely available. Generally these are either stolen just like the other catagories or they are bought by private purchase. Private purchase is when someone who legally bought a gun, then sells it to someone else. This is generally legal depending on where you live and the circumstances of the transaction.

The above is a general answer to a more complex problem. A step in the right direction is to enforce the existing laws, not make new ones.

[cover2]

In the articles I read, here's the deal.....and again, this was from 15 years ago or so.

A guy, and the interview was with the guy in question while sitting in prison, said he'd drive from NYC out to Ohio, or Kentucky, maybe Virginia, I don't remember every state involved. He'd buy AR-15s, Uzi Carbines (the kind with the 16 inch barrel), and similar weapons, sometimes 3 or 4 at one shop. He had no record, and at that time I don't think records were even checked for long guns. It was basically flash a drivers license and you get what you want. He'd bring them back, file off serial numbers and sear pins and cut down barrels, and voila, machine guns/assault weapons/whatever-you-want-to-call-them for criminals.

As for where criminals get their guns, they are not smuggled in, for the most part, from other countries. And I can't imagine too many are privately purchased by thugs reading the "must sell" pages of their local newspapers. Yes, some are stolen (and guess from where? What good are those guns sitting in your night-table, except to arm thugs when you aren't home), but some are sold out the back door of gun dealers (and we read about such things all the time, including one place here in Baltihole that's been shut down numerous times, switched owners, etc.) or they are purchased from some states by people with either fake documentation or people, like the guy I mentioned above, w/o records who are now into the gun trade (and, just like drugs, why does someone get into the gun trade? The money. And why is the money so high/good? Because there's A) a high demand for guns and B) they are not as available in some places as others).

Chances are, if I get shot today, it'll be by some thug with a handgun, and, at some point, that handgun was probably purchased legally and was either stolen from that person, or that person who purchased it legally was lacking in scruples and sold it illegally to someone with even less scruples.

By the way, there were 278 murders in Baltimore last year, a city of about 750,000 people, maybe less. Not sure how many were by firearms, but I'd say the majority were. Anyway, Toronto, a city of 2.5 million, had 69. And what are the reasons?

A) Slightly different culture in general, although Toronto is pretty "American"
B) Handguns are very tough to own in ALL of the country of Canada, not just Toronto.

Thus, the guy from Ohio on Page 1 who said "we follow Federal law, not some stupid NYC law", is actually an idiot. Federal law is the minimum required. It doesn't mean a state or local jurisdiction can't pass something more strict. If we banned handguns to anyone who was not a collector or truly NEEDED one, then they would not be everywhere. True, some would still die by knife, baseball bat, etc., but a gun does make things very easy.

To those who rave over the 2nd Amendment, think about this: that amendment talks about the need for a local militia, and that's why people need guns. So, how many gun owners are part of the "militia", whatever that is? Or, if we get invaded by Iraq (joking), is your 9mm really going to help defend our country.

Having said all of that, I love guns! Seriously! I've been obsessed, almost, since my childhood days, with guns, fighter planes, tanks, etc. So I understand our love of such things. But the rational side of me sees that they may not be the best thing.

[Sabre]

Not really wanting to stroll into the whole legal firearm debate (again), but I think some people are missing cover2's point.

The argument most pro-gun people here are making is that virtually all firearms used in crimes are illegally held. Therefore there is little point in having strict firearms laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from owning weapons that they wont use to commit crimes.

cover2's point takes that argument to the next 'so what' assessment. If these criminally-used firearms are illegally owned, where do they come from? This is a perfectly reasonable question. The answer seems to be that they were legally owned firearms just one or two steps before. Whether it is by the permission of the legal purchaser (a street gun dealer) or not (ie stolen from a legal owner's house etc), these 'illegal' firearms came from the legal firearm population. Therefore there is a direct link between legal firearm ownership and the criminal use of firearms.

Now, I'm not suggesting that legal ownership of firearms be stopped in the US to prevent their criminal use, because the existing pool of firearms is already so great. But you must be able to see that if there were no legally held firearms, the ability for your average street criminal to obtain a firearm would be massively reduced.

[cover2]

Sabre,

Thanks for summing that up. Usually I'm much more succinct than I have been in this discussion.

Oh, and here's an article I just found on that one Baltimore area (just outside the city, in Baltimore county) gunshop that was shut down. I think this was from about a year ago. I think it's since reopened under new management, who, hopefully, can actually MANAGE:

February 27, 2006
ATF Shuts Down NRA Board Member’s Gun Shop After He “Loses” Hundreds of Weapons (http://www.gunguys.com/?p=770)

The ATF has shut down a gun store in Baltimore County, Maryland (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.guns25feb25,0,3075526.story?coll=bal-local-headlines) for refusing to account for hundreds of guns since 1997. But this isn’t just any old gun store– it’s owned by an NRA board member.

“We don’t want firearms getting into the hands of criminals,” said David McCain, assistant special agent in charge of the Baltimore field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “If we come in and find they’re not complying with the regulations, we have to enforce the law.”
The license seizure came one day after a federal judge dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by Valley Gun of Parkville. Owner Sanford Abrams sued to stop the federal government from taking his license to sell firearms at the store, which has been in operation since 1954.
Abrams said had not heard about the court order or the ATF’s decision to take his license when reached yesterday afternoon.
“You’re not allowed to make a mistake. That’s essentially what they’re saying,” Abrams said. “I have had the entire federal government to battle. I’m sure we’ll appeal.”
A mistake is one thing. “Losing” a hundred guns is another. And apparently it’s not like the ATF just sprang this license revocation on Abrams– he got warned over and over again.

The investigation that led to the license revocation started nearly nine years ago when, the ATF said, it found problems in Abrams’ bookkeeping. In July 1997, agents compared the number of firearms listed in the store’s books with the number of firearms on the premises.
The store came up 45 weapons short, according to agents.
After more missing weapons were identified after a 1999 inspection, the bureau held a “warning conference” with Abrams, who promised to improve record-keeping.
Agents returned in 2001 and noted 133 missing weapons. They held another “warning conference.” Abrams again pledged to make progress.
Finally, in May 2003, an audit of Abrams’ books found 472 weapons unaccounted for. The ATF issued a notice of license revocation in May 2004. In October, an administrative hearing officer ruled that Abrams’ violations were “willful.”
A final notice to take the license was officially issued in February last year but was stayed pending the court case.
So he got warned three times, but still kept “losing” hundreds of weapons. That sounds like much more than just a clerical error to us.

“Human error” was the way he described most of his store’s mistakes. “I’m not doing something illegal,” Abrams said in an interview yesterday.
But on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William M. Nickerson ruled that while Abrams “may challenge the numerousness or seriousness of its violations of federal firearms law, [he] makes no credible argument that there were no violations.”
“The undisputed fact is that because of [Valley Gun’s] lapses, scores of firearms are unaccounted for, and therefore, untraceable,” the judge ruled.
And here’s the scariest part of the whole story:

Abrams is vice president of the Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association and a board member of the National Rifle Association, a leading guns-rights lobbying group. He was elected last year to another three-year term.
This guy isn’t just a shady gun dealer who happened to run aground of the ATF. He’s the VP of a dealers association. He’s an elected leader of the NRA. And, according to the ATF’s reasoning, this is the same guy who’s pouring weapons into criminals hands.
If this is what the best of the NRA looks like, how bad does it get? Are these really the people we want lobbying bills into law?

[H2O MAN]

Here's the answer as to where do those guns come from?

The expensive one's i.e. Glocks, SIG's, Colts, etc. are stolen most of the time. Homey the clown can't just go into a gun store and fork out $800 and pass a background check to get that chromed out Desert Eagle 44 mag.

The reality is:

"Assault weapons" are involved in less than 1% of firearm incidents. In fact there has only been 1 homicide in the U.S. with a legally owned machinegun and the offender in that crime was a police officer. BTW "assault weapons" are regulated buy the ATF and subject to the NFA. Just because California want's to call my Mini-14 with a pistol grip an "Assault Weapon" doesn't make it one. If I say 2+4=8 does that make it true? Hardly.

Semi-auto rifles, i.e. your UZI Carbine's, Colt AR-15, FN FAL's and such, are even more expensive than most good pistols and invlolved in less than 5% of crimes envolving firearms. These are also mostly stolen.

The final category are the "saturday night specials" and "junk guns" which doesn't necessarily mean there crappy guns, just cheap guns. These are easier to get simply because they are affordable and widely available. Generally these are either stolen just like the other catagories or they are bought by private purchase. Private purchase is when someone who legally bought a gun, then sells it to someone else. This is generally legal depending on where you live and the circumstances of the transaction.

The above is a general answer to a more complex problem. A step in the right direction is to enforce the existing laws, not make new ones.

Yes, the street corner thug will normally have the cheap weapon, it may surprise you to learn the
thugs they work for and the more organized gangs have invested in better, more expensive weapons.

Illegal AKs and the like smuggled in from Mexico are very popular in ATL, but the press won't report this fact.

Be safe.

[Roaming East]

BS, i frequent Atlanta all the time and have family there and cant recall the last time anybody there was killed with ANY rifle caliber weapon. Pistols have been and will always be the weapon of choice for street gangs and hoods. A quick glance at the crime blotter will tell you whats being used to kill people and it sure aint no heavy ass Assault rifle.

Secondly, straw man purchases are common. A thug may not be able to roll into a gunstore and buy that chromed out Eagle but his clean slate buddy sure as hell can. Give him the money and maybe an extra 50 for his trouble and your pals will hook you up.

The most popular gun in the Eastern Va area are second generation glocks (confiscation wise). Theyve been flooding the market as police buy new issue gear and since gun stores cant sell them at profit with so much supply in the works, they end up in pawn shops. Same place i saw on Warwick Blvd has been selling old police issue Glocks for 200 bucks a piece.

[H2O MAN]

BS, i frequent Atlanta all the time and have family there and cant recall the last time anybody there was killed with ANY rifle caliber weapon. Pistols have been and will always be the weapon of choice for street gangs and hoods. A quick glance at the crime blotter will tell you whats being used to kill people and it sure aint no heavy ass Assault rifle.

Not BS!
I didn't say they were being use yet - I'm just pointing out that they have these weapons.

[Laconian]

The question of where do the guns come from is simple enough to answer: they are either stolen outright (Mickey the Mope drives a truck through the gun store window, pawn shop burglaries, residential burglaries, theft in transit, etc.), a crooked dealer/employee (selling wpns off the books) or the weapons are diverted from the legal f/a arena. The latter most often occurs in source states (states that have more lenient purchase requirements and/or a large number of gun stores). Initial purchases are, more often than not, straw purchases (the person buying the weapon is not the true purchaser - an offense under Federal law). The trafficker then transports his wares to a market state/city (or internationally) and, ta-da, diverted guns are now crime guns sold off the books.

Most of the time the traffickers will traffic in handguns just because they are easier to move, but illegal long gun trafficking (especially in international) is not at all that uncommon.

Back to the article: 5-10% of the LE population are true warriors; predators that hunt predators. Most, however, treat it as a job; they haven't been victimized yet through a combination of luck, timing and the efforts of their brother/sister officers. Most cops know this and have known it for a long period of time. However, agencies have exerted great efforts to get college-educated candidates that can pass a background check, and all too often these people lack the hardness to hunt the people that hunt them. My opinion; rant off.

[exarmyguard]

Well, the expose was a while ago while I lived in NY. It was probably just before the 10 day or two week waiting period was put into effect. Around 1990? It was a while ago. But I think it could still be done with long guns, no? As there is no waiting period for them. Notice that, in my original post, I said "at that time" and that "I don't know how current laws have changed that". Way to read only what you wanted to.

In any case, where do people think criminals get their guns? I'm really curious to know.

Also, to the person who agreed that these "bangers" train a lot at ranges, don't the ranges have rules that you have to show a permit when you arrive? Or can anybody just show up with a gun from anywhere and start shooting?

In my state, the rule is if you can reach your wallet and pull out the money, you can shoot there. They don't check your license. As long as you act in a safe manner, you don't get hassled. Frankly, it is not the job of the gun range to check anyone. If they decided to check who they thought were gangbangers, they would get sued. If they checked everyone, they would be out of business. IMO shooting a box of ammo downrange does not a good shooter make. In basic training, we did alot of weapons handling and training w/o rounds before we went to the range. You don't need alot of live fire to be somewhat trained in shooting. Use dry snaps and employment drills and you can be part of the way there.

[exarmyguard]

So again, I ask, where do the guns come from?

I saw a TV special that asked the same question. One way was from license dealers who bought police confiscated guns and then they made their way to criminals. ALot of guns come from the southeast and make their way north. Like one guy stated, they are stolen from gunshops, from homes, are sold by shady gun dealers, or by legal gun owners who bought them legally.

[cover2]

Well, as I see, you guys see my point, and that is that this line from the original article is pretty stupid:

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

See what I mean? These guys don't worry about the gun laws, b/c it's OTHER people (illegal gun dealers) who worry about those laws and how to circumvent them in order to keep buying guns to then re-sell illegally. So, ultimately laws DO matter. For example, and I'm not saying this is the way to go, if handgun sales were banned altogether except to law enforcement personnel, the availability of handguns to criminals would drop (slowly, of course, b/c there are already so many around).

That's what I hate about the straw-man arguments of the gun lobby. Obviously yo homey street thug off the street here in Baltimore doesn't drive to a gun show in Montana to buy guns. But, there is the possibility that someone else would, then drive them back to sell to yo homey street thug.

[Hunterhr]

Well, as I see, you guys see my point, and that is that this line from the original article is pretty stupid:

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

See what I mean? These guys don't worry about the gun laws, b/c it's OTHER people (illegal gun dealers) who worry about those laws and how to circumvent them in order to keep buying guns to then re-sell illegally. So, ultimately laws DO matter. For example, and I'm not saying this is the way to go, if handgun sales were banned altogether except to law enforcement personnel, the availability of handguns to criminals would drop (slowly, of course, b/c there are already so many around).

That's what I hate about the straw-man arguments of the gun lobby. Obviously yo homey street thug off the street here in Baltimore doesn't drive to a gun show in Montana to buy guns. But, there is the possibility that someone else would, then drive them back to sell to yo homey street thug.

Except all those guns would point back to the guy selling them out. Hell, if the police recovered at least one weapon he would have a whole lot of questions to answer. Especially if he didn't call the police and report them as stolen. It's not like you can go across state lines, purchase a bunch of weapons and then run through the streets tossing them out to whoever. You could, but it's a very good way to end up with prison time.

Much easier to just use stolen guns.

[Group9]

Well, as I see, you guys see my point, and that is that this line from the original article is pretty stupid:

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

See what I mean? These guys don't worry about the gun laws, b/c it's OTHER people (illegal gun dealers) who worry about those laws and how to circumvent them in order to keep buying guns to then re-sell illegally. So, ultimately laws DO matter. For example, and I'm not saying this is the way to go, if handgun sales were banned altogether except to law enforcement personnel, the availability of handguns to criminals would drop (slowly, of course, b/c there are already so many around).

That's what I hate about the straw-man arguments of the gun lobby. Obviously yo homey street thug off the street here in Baltimore doesn't drive to a gun show in Montana to buy guns. But, there is the possibility that someone else would, then drive them back to sell to yo homey street thug.

Gun laws remind me of the time my wife went into a bank with sunglasses on and the bank teller asked her to take them off, pointing to a sign at the door that said wearing sunglasses in the bank was not allowed.

My wife asked what the purpose of the rule was, and was told that it was to prevent bank robberies. My wife then asked the teller why they didn't just put up a sign saying no bank robberies allowed.

The teller didn't think my wife was very funny, but I have a feeling the teller and the bank would have agreed with your point of view on gun laws.

[Geezah]

The question of where do the guns come from is simple enough to answer: they are either stolen outright (Mickey the Mope drives a truck through the gun store window, pawn shop burglaries, residential burglaries, theft in transit, etc.), a crooked dealer/employee (selling wpns off the books) or the weapons are diverted from the legal f/a arena. The latter most often occurs in source states (states that have more lenient purchase requirements and/or a large number of gun stores). Initial purchases are, more often than not, straw purchases (the person buying the weapon is not the true purchaser - an offense under Federal law). The trafficker then transports his wares to a market state/city (or internationally) and, ta-da, diverted guns are now crime guns sold off the books.

Most of the time the traffickers will traffic in handguns just because they are easier to move, but illegal long gun trafficking (especially in international) is not at all that uncommon.

Back to the article: 5-10% of the LE population are true warriors; predators that hunt predators. Most, however, treat it as a job; they haven't been victimized yet through a combination of luck, timing and the efforts of their brother/sister officers. Most cops know this and have known it for a long period of time. However, agencies have exerted great efforts to get college-educated candidates that can pass a background check, and all too often these people lack the hardness to hunt the people that hunt them. My opinion; rant off.

I'm highlighting this post as Laconian knows what he is talking about, so just in case it was missed the first time.........rewind.......:D

[SOG]

Not BS!
I didn't say they were being use yet - I'm just pointing out that they have these weapons.


true, you see it all the time on cops, thugs have an impressive array of rifles at home, shotguns, ar, ak, hunting rifles etc. its like they bought them because they though they were cool then couldnt go anywhere with them for the risk of getting caught or concealment issues. me and my freind are always balking at the amount of guns brought out from a perps home. whish we could afford that **** to take down to the range.

[~center~]

Back to the article: 5-10% of the LE population are true warriors; predators that hunt predators. Most, however, treat it as a job; they haven't been victimized yet through a combination of luck, timing and the efforts of their brother/sister officers. Most cops know this and have known it for a long period of time. However, agencies have exerted great efforts to get college-educated candidates that can pass a background check, and all too often these people lack the hardness to hunt the people that hunt them. My opinion; rant off.

^^^ Quoted for truth!

[22.5degrees]

Cover2 you are wrong in your thoughts regarding the prohinition of handgun sales. Take England or Australia for example. Both have outlawed the ownership of handguns and most everything else. Both countries now boast extremely high rates of violent crime and get this... An increase in firearm related crime. London in 2004 had nearly 17,000 firearm related offences. Wow, how could that be if no one is permitted to own a handgun? Those who wish to do harm with firearms will ALWAYS acquire one. Laws work when citizens abide by them. Criminals by nature do not abide by the law. You can't legislate common sense or expect any piece of paper to reduce any sort of crime. You can however severely penalize those who are so inclined to commit such offences.

On a side note, I live in Canada, and I used to work at one of the largest gun shops in the country. I can assure you that anyone wanting a firearm off the books can most certainly acquire one with little effort and a bit of cash. The murders in Toronto were mainly gang/drug related offences in the slums of inner city Toronto. Knives and blunt force trauma are still the number one and two choices respectively for homicide. Stabbings are standard news for a saturday or sunday night. Yet no one complains about too many knives on the street....

22.5

Here's a link for some enlightening info. Note the finer points regarding the increase in crime regardless of the fact that the gov't has gotten "tough" on firearms owners, you know, those of us who pose less than 2% of the possible violent offenders. Also note that most offenders(2/3) had prior criminal histories, are males between 18-24 and most homicides occured while either the victim or the accused had consumed ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUGS.

Bottom line here is that repeat offenders who are known substance users/abusers (and are not legally permitted to own or operate firearms) are those responsible for the majority of homicides. That being said I'm all in favor of legalizing drugs, why the f*ck not!

http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0060585-002-XIE.pdf

[Nano]

Cover2 you are wrong in your thoughts regarding the prohinition of handgun sales. Take England or Australia for example. Both have outlawed the ownership of handguns and most everything else. Both countries now boast extremely high rates of violent crime and get this... An increase in firearm related crime. London in 2004 had nearly 17,000 firearm related offences. Wow, how could that be if no one is permitted to own a handgun? Those who wish to do harm with firearms will ALWAYS acquire one. Laws work when citizens abide by them. Criminals by nature do not abide by the law. You can't legislate common sense or expect any piece of paper to reduce any sort of crime. You can however severely penalize those who are so inclined to commit such offences.

On a side note, I live in Canada, and I used to work at one of the largest gun shops in the country. I can assure you that anyone wanting a firearm off the books can most certainly acquire one with little effort and a bit of cash. The murders in Toronto were mainly gang/drug related offences in the slums of inner city Toronto. Knives and blunt force trauma are still the number one and two choices respectively for homicide. Stabbings are standard news for a saturday or sunday night. Yet no one complains about too many knives on the street....

22.5
Indeed it is possible for criminals and anyone else for that matter to get a hold of guns given they know someone and have the money. Gun control is a joke in the U.S. since states differ on gun laws so even if California made it close to impossible for a law biding citizen to own one criminals would always simply drive east and get one or better yet get one off the books in California. Honestly certain gun control laws have no place on the books and only hinder the law biding and aid the criminals. I know why England and Australia have such an increasing rate of firearm related crime given that criminals would be able to hold communities hostage because they can't otherwise protect themselves. The police always show up after the fact and can do very little to bring back a loved one after they've been killed. Mexico is one country where guns are outlawed yet criminals have been found with LAWs, .50 machineguns, rifles of almost every sort, granades,RPG's. Mexico and many other countries would be better off arming their citizens against criminals than let them become their prey.
The gun control laws remind me of a little saying about good intentions causing much of the world's problems.

[Durandal]

To those who rave over the 2nd Amendment,

I love it when people who have disdain for the Constitution talk down to those of us that support the 2nd Amendment (as much as any of the other Amendments).



think about this: that amendment talks about the need for a local militia, and that's why people need guns.

Actually, if you read the thousands of papers written by the nation's founding fathers you can see their intent plainly. The idea of gun ownership was one of the core fundamentals in the society since weapon control was one of the ways tyranny was able to succeed, be it crossbows or bladed weapons in the hands of peasants.

You cannot simply read the the Amendment as a single passage. It is has two parts. It also cannot be read alone, since it uses a language that the rest of the first 10 Amendments use.

At its most simple level, the Amendment simply states that the people need to be armed in order to have a solid militia. The arming of the people is RIGHT, owned BY THE PEOPLE, not the government. The government's job is to regulate (train, set age limits, quotas, etc) the militia, not the firearm.


So, how many gun owners are part of the "militia", whatever that is?

The Federal Supreme Court decided quite a while back that the militia consisted of the following: The National Guard, the informal militia (as determined by the State), and the Naval Reserve.

So now you know what the militia is.

The unorganized militia in the State of Ohio (where I live) is as follows:

As per Section 9 of the Ohio State Constitution:


§ 9.01 Who shall perform military duty

All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law.

(As amended Nov. 7, 1961.)


Or, if we get invaded by Iraq (joking), is your 9mm really going to help defend our country.

Iraqis seem to have been doing a pretty good job so far, without any M1A2 tanks, B1 bombers, AH64s, high tech body armor, night vision gear, etc.

To be honest though Americans, as a nation, are pretty well armed and I would pity the nation trying to subdue this country (as unlikely as it is that it would happen).

However, I am willing to trade off my rights to won firearms IF you can guarantee me these things:

1) Our government will never become a corrupt body, governing, not in the name of the people, but for their own gain.

2) That, without becoming a police state and invading my RIGHT to privacy, you ALSO guarantee that I will never be broken into, and if I am the police will protect me.

3) That in times of natural disaster the government will not lose control of the region and prevent looting, rape, and mass confusion.

4) That our economy will always be strong and the region I live in will NEVER slip into economic and social depravity as resulting from a world collapse of the various markets for any of a variety of reasons.

5) Eminent domain my property for private development.

6) That if you want my firearms you will pay a fair price for the firearm (the cost of a new replacement in terms of Class I firearms) and the collectors market value for Curio and Relic firearms and Class III firearms/Desturctive devices).

If you can guarantee me all of that then I'll agree to hand over my firearms.

[martinexsquaddie]

In the year ending June 2005, there were 10,979 firearm offences recorded in England and Wales (excluding offences involving air guns).

73 murders in the whole of the uk by firearms
# e Home Office says that the increases are partly due to changes in the way crimes are recorded and much of the increase can be put down to a huge jump in offences involving imitation weapons.
# Imitation weapons were used in 3,332 offences in 2004/05, an increase of more than half (55%) from 2003/04. Although some of these weapons can be converted to fire bullets, it is unknown how many such weapons exist.
# Ball-bearing (BB) guns are easy to purchase and often look like real weapons.
# Also, gun crime tends to be focused in certain areas. Over half (54%) of gun crime occurred in London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=102&ca
so rather than gang bangers running amock in the UK and its citizens defenceless life is slightly diffrent

[~center~]

Major ruling against D.C. handgun ban

In 2-1 vote, appeals court says Second Amendment is not limited to ‘militia’


NBC News and news services
Updated: 4:32 p.m. PT March 9, 2007

WASHINGTON - In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.
In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
The majority held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia.
The ruling is a victory for Tom Palmer, a Washington resident who was once assaulted and wants a gun in the house for self-defense.
"The fact is that the criminals don't obey the law and they do have guns," he said. "It's the law-abiding citizens who are disarmed by this law."
He was one of six who went to court to challenge the city's gun law, passed as an anti-crime measure 30 years ago. It outlaws handguns or rifles except for residents with permits, mainly police or security guards.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said the ruling could put more guns in the hands of young people. "I am personally deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged by today's decision," he said. "Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia."

Rival judicial views
The ruling revives a long fight over the 27 words of the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Gun control advocates argue that the phrase "well-regulated militia" means that owning a gun is a group right, subject to restriction.
But the court essentially said the right to bear arms is an individual right for private activities, including self-defense.
“The district’s definition of the militia is just too narrow,” Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority. “There are too many instances of ‘bear arms’ indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense.”
That's precisely the view that the National Rifle Association has advocated for decades.
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, said the decision gives the district “a crack in the door to join the rest of the country in full constitutional freedom.”
Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.
Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still “subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”
Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

Time for Supreme Court?
The city says it will appeal, to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
“I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. He said the D.C. circuit is historically influential with the Supreme Court because it often deals with constitutional questions.
“You also have a very well-reasoned opinion, both in the majority and the dissent,” Turley said.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment’s scope.
Legal experts say Friday's ruling launches a huge battle.
"This is a monumental case that sets up the biggest fight over gun rights in the modern history of the United States," said expert Tom Goldstein.
New York and Chicago have similar strict gun laws. And a host of local and federal laws regulate ownership.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district’s requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.
Gun control groups fear that if Friday's ruling stands, it could weaken gun laws nationwide.
"You're allowing any sort of a gun law, whether it's a waiting period, a background check, you leave it open to challenge," said gun control advocate Paul Helmke.

NBC's Pete Williams and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[BillySing]

Cover2 you are wrong in your thoughts regarding the prohinition of handgun sales. Take England or Australia for example. Both have outlawed the ownership of handguns and most everything else. Both countries now boast extremely high rates of violent crime and get this... An increase in firearm related crime. London in 2004 had nearly 17,000 firearm related offences. Wow, how could that be if no one is permitted to own a handgun? Those who wish to do harm with firearms will ALWAYS acquire one. Laws work when citizens abide by them. Criminals by nature do not abide by the law. You can't legislate common sense or expect any piece of paper to reduce any sort of crime. You can however severely penalize those who are so inclined to commit such offences.

On a side note, I live in Canada, and I used to work at one of the largest gun shops in the country. I can assure you that anyone wanting a firearm off the books can most certainly acquire one with little effort and a bit of cash. The murders in Toronto were mainly gang/drug related offences in the slums of inner city Toronto. Knives and blunt force trauma are still the number one and two choices respectively for homicide. Stabbings are standard news for a saturday or sunday night. Yet no one complains about too many knives on the street....

22.5

Here's a link for some enlightening info. Note the finer points regarding the increase in crime regardless of the fact that the gov't has gotten "tough" on firearms owners, you know, those of us who pose less than 2% of the possible violent offenders. Also note that most offenders(2/3) had prior criminal histories, are males between 18-24 and most homicides occured while either the victim or the accused had consumed ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUGS.

Bottom line here is that repeat offenders who are known substance users/abusers (and are not legally permitted to own or operate firearms) are those responsible for the majority of homicides. That being said I'm all in favor of legalizing drugs, why the f*ck not!

http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0060585-002-XIE.pdf


Nah mate, not nearly.

We've lost the right to own semi-automatics, both shotgun and rifle, pump action shotguns, handguns with a calibre over .38 (.38 special is the largest commercial calibre allowed, unless your a member of a registered metallic silhouette club, in which you can use just about any calibre), Magazine restrictions are rife (handguns=10 round max)

Suppressors are out, though obtainable through a temporary permit, and must be destroyed afterwards.

A category C&D licence will get you semi-auto's (shotty,centrefire/rimfire rifle) with a 10 round magazine restriction, as well as pump actions (10 rounds also) Though to obtain said licence, you must be involved in the culling of vertebrate pests, in primary produce (farmer) etc.

As well as all the length restrictions. Handguns can be exempt from said restrictions through obtaining a collector's licence.

bolt action centrefire rifles are restricted to a 15 round limit(?) and I'm pretty sure bolt action rimfire is 20. Lever actions (shotty,rimfire,centrefire) as well as pump action (rimfire/centrefire rifle) are fine.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

From Force Science News provided by The Force Science Research Center. 5/9/07

New findings on how offenders train with, carry and deploy the weapons they use to attack police officers have emerged in a just-published, 5-year study by the FBI.

Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be cop killers:
--show signs of being armed that officers miss;
--have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;
--practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;
--have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. “If you hesitate,” one told the study’s researchers, “you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”

These and other weapons-related findings comprise one chapter in a 180-page research summary called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” The study is the third in a series of long investigations into fatal and nonfatal attacks on POs by the FBI team of Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, clinical forensic psychologist, and Ed Davis, criminal investigative instructor, both with the Bureau’s Behavioral Science Unit, and Charles Miller III, coordinator of the LEOs Killed and Assaulted program.
“Violent Encounters” also reports in detail on the personal characteristics of attacked officers and their assaulters, the role of perception in life-threatening confrontations, the myths of memory that can hamper OIS investigations, the suicide-by-cop phenomenon, current training issues, and other matters relevant to officer survival. (Force Science News and our strategic partner PoliceOne.com will be reporting on more findings from this landmark study in future transmissions.)
Commenting on the broad-based study, Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, called it “very challenging and insightful--important work that only a handful of gifted and experienced researchers could accomplish.”
From a pool of more than 800 incidents, the researchers selected 40, involving 43 offenders (13 of them admitted gangbangers-drug traffickers) and 50 officers, for in-depth exploration. They visited crime scenes and extensively interviewed surviving officers and attackers alike, most of the latter in prison.
Here are highlights of what they learned about weapon selection, familiarity, transport and use by criminals attempting to murder cops, a small portion of the overall research:
Weapon Choice
Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available “was the overriding factor in weapon choice,” the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun “because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.”
Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was “hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.”
Familiarity
Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing “most of the time.” Gang members especially started young.
Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% “regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year,” the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and “street corners in known drug-trafficking areas.”
One spoke of being motivated to improve his gun skills by his belief that officers “go to the range two, three times a week [and] practice arms so they can hit anything.”
In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this “may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills,” the study says.
The offender quoted above about his practice motivation, for example, fired 12 rounds at an officer, striking him 3 times. The officer fired 7 rounds, all misses.
More than 40% of the offenders had been involved in actual shooting confrontations before they feloniously assaulted an officer. Ten of these “street combat veterans,” all from “inner-city, drug-trafficking environments,” had taken part in 5 or more “criminal firefight experiences” in their lifetime.
One reported that he was 14 when he was first shot on the street, “about 18 before a cop shot me.” Another said getting shot was a pivotal experience “because I made up my mind no one was gonna shoot me again.”
Again in contrast, only 8 of the 50 LEO victims had participated in a prior shooting; 1 had been involved in 2 previously, another in 3. Seven of the 8 had killed offenders.
Concealment
The offenders said they most often hid guns on their person in the front waistband, with the groin area and the small of the back nearly tied for second place. Some occasionally gave their weapons to another person to carry, “most often a female companion.” None regularly used a holster, and about 40% at least sometimes carried a backup weapon.
In motor vehicles, they most often kept their firearm readily available on their person, or, less often, under the seat. In residences, most stashed their weapon under a pillow, on a nightstand, under the mattress--somewhere within immediate reach while in bed.
Almost all carried when on the move and strong majorities did so when socializing, committing crimes or being at home. About one-third brought weapons with them to work. Interestingly, the offenders in this study more commonly admitted having guns under all these circumstances than did offenders interviewed in the researchers’ earlier 2 surveys, conducted in the 1980s and ’90s.
According to Davis, “Male offenders said time and time again that female officers tend to search them more thoroughly than male officers. In prison, most of the offenders were more afraid to carry contraband or weapons when a female CO was on duty.”
On the street, however, both male and female officers too often regard female subjects “as less of a threat, assuming that they not going to have a gun,” Davis said. In truth, the researchers concluded that more female offenders are armed today than 20 years ago--“not just female gang associates, but female offenders generally.”
Shooting Style
Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, “claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights,” the study says.
“They practice getting the gun out and using it,” Davis explained. “They shoot for effect.” Or as one of the offenders put it: “[W]e’re not working with no marksmanship….We just putting it in your direction, you know….It don’t matter…as long as it’s gonna hit you…if it’s up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever….Once I squeeze and you fall, then…if I want to execute you, then I could go from there.”
Hit Rate
More often than the officers they attacked, offenders delivered at least some rounds on target in their encounters. Nearly 70% of assailants were successful in that regard with handguns, compared to about 40% of the victim officers, the study found. (Efforts of offenders and officers to get on target were considered successful if any rounds struck, regardless of the number fired.)
Davis speculated that the offenders might have had an advantage because in all but 3 cases they fired first, usually catching the officer by surprise. Indeed, the report points out, “10 of the total victim officers had been wounded [and thus impaired] before they returned gunfire at their attackers.”
Missed Cues
Officers would less likely be caught off guard by attackers if they were more observant of indicators of concealed weapons, the study concludes. These particularly include manners of dress, ways of moving and unconscious gestures often related to carrying.
“Officers should look for unnatural protrusions or bulges in the waist, back and crotch areas,” the study says, and watch for “shirts that appear rippled or wavy on one side of the body while the fabric on the other side appears smooth.” In warm weather, multilayered clothing inappropriate to the temperature may be a giveaway. On cold or rainy days, a subject’s jacket hood may not be covering his head because it is being used to conceal a handgun.
Because they eschew holsters, offenders reported frequently touching a concealed gun with hands or arms “to assure themselves that it is still hidden, secure and accessible” and hasn’t shifted. Such gestures are especially noticeable “whenever individuals change body positions, such as standing, sitting or exiting a vehicle.” If they run, they may need to keep a constant grip on a hidden gun to control it.
Just as cops generally blade their body to make their sidearm less accessible, armed criminals “do the same in encounters with LEOs to ensure concealment and easy access.”
An irony, Davis noted, is that officers who are assigned to look for concealed weapons, while working off-duty security at night clubs for instance, are often highly proficient at detecting them. “But then when they go back to the street without that specific assignment, they seem to ‘turn off’ that skill,” and thus are startled--sometimes fatally--when a suspect suddenly produces a weapon and attacks.
Mind-set
Thirty-six of the 50 officers in the study had “experienced hazardous situations where they had the legal authority” to use deadly force “but chose not to shoot.” They averaged 4 such prior incidents before the encounters that the researchers investigated. “It appeared clear that none of these officers were willing to use deadly force against an offender if other options were available,” the researchers concluded.
The offenders were of a different mind-set entirely. In fact, Davis said the study team “did not realize how cold blooded the younger generation of offender is. They have been exposed to killing after killing, they fully expect to get killed and they don’t hesitate to shoot anybody, including a police officer. They can go from riding down the street saying what a beautiful day it is to killing in the next instant.”
“Offenders typically displayed no moral or ethical restraints in using firearms,” the report states. “In fact, the street combat veterans survived by developing a shoot-first mentality.
“Officers never can assume that a criminal is unarmed until they have thoroughly searched the person and the surroundings themselves.” Nor, in the interest of personal safety, can officers “let their guards down in any type of law enforcement situation.”

[Dispatcher]

Interesting read! There goes the theory that gangbangers always shoot in a 90 degree angle....

[Seraphim]

Interesting read...I swear I read it before though.

Ah found it!

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=106276&highlight=attackers+study