Gun Permit

[The Lone Alliance]

It was YOUR goalpost.

no my goalpost was pool pf all gun sales.

Then that means you are a liar since the original argument was not "Pool of all gun sales" but
"It's easier to get a gun than a Library card.

The fact that your argument was soundly defeated and destroyed resulted in you changing the subject because you couldn't handle the fact that you couldn't answer it. You're not very good at this debating thing are you.

20% of all purchases are from family, another ten from friends.
so what percentage of private sales do you think fit one of these two categories.

so we can say a minimum of 30% of firearm sales require no paperwork.

And both of those groups of people would know of a person's background in the first place.

But for your Library card thing.
Lets compare the arguments here.

Library Card:
1. Go to Library
2. Fill out form for contact info or provide ID
3. Get card
4. Check out book on same day

Guns (in all the many ways)
1. Buy gun from dealer
2. Run time consuming background check
3. Have waiting period
4. Get gun

Private Sale A
1. Buy gun from seller
2. Gun shipped to dealer which takes time
3. Time consuming background check that takes days
4. Get gun

Private Sale B:
1. Buy gun from seller
2. Give contact info to seller or have seller already know most of your personal information to begin with.
3. physically travel to said location
4. Get gun

At the least private sale B is the same as a Library card not counting gas money.

[Sucrati]

What is your your stance on mandatory background checks for gun ownership and/or a firearms permit, and why.

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card.

Actually, the whole aspect of the Federal Government regulating firearms can't be done without a Constitutional Amendment. It would be up to the states, counties, and municipalities to determine what gun laws/regulations are in place. Even still, there are attempts to allow a federal level allowance to carry in some form across state lines. The problem is that certain areas of the country prohibit carrying firearms openly or concealed in most instances and the people who run those areas have complained it would violate their state's or other locale's sovereignty. Something about people going ape-you know what on the populace. Also, as said above, the states usually set their own laws that work for the state at hand. And as before, some states are rather restrictive with firearm registration while some are rather lenient... The odd thing is the more restrictive locales tend to have higher gun related violence for some reason...

Besides, that would require the federal government to keep a database of your records until it sees fit to supposedly 'purge' your records after the background check. That would be in violation of the 4th amendment.

While your question and reasons have good intentions, it's not up to the Feds to decide, but the States and lower levels of government to decide who can and can't get a permit, license, or firearms.

[Sociobiology]

which is a subset of gun sales, thus moving the goal post.

I don't think so.
Largely since most "family and friends" guns sales, despite the propensity, aren't typically for or resulting in nefarious events.

no, but the leading source of guns used in crimes are private sales.
So they are more likely to be used for nefarious purposes.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOSPI91.PDF
Not sure where you are going with this tangent but, I'm game.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I don't think so.
Largely since most "family and friends" guns sales, despite the propensity, aren't typically for or resulting in nefarious events.

no, but the leading source of guns used in crimes are private sales.
So they are more likely to be used for nefarious purposes.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOSPI91.PDF
Not sure where you are going with this tangent but, I'm game.

Well, you just said that 70% of private sales were between strangers.
*gestures*

[Sociobiology]

What is your your stance on mandatory background checks for gun ownership and/or a firearms permit, and why.

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the license can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card.

Actually, the whole aspect of the Federal Government regulating firearms can't be done without a Constitutional Amendment.

why?
see current federal restrictions.

And as before, some states are rather restrictive with firearm registration while some are rather lenient... The odd thing is the more restrictive locales tend to have higher gun related violence for some reason...

source.
and remember you have to control for population density which is a major predictor of violent crime.

Besides, that would require the federal government to keep a database of your records until it sees fit to supposedly 'purge' your records after the background check. That would be in violation of the 4th amendment.

No it wouldn't, as long as it was protected by a warrant. see tax information and various other permits.

While your question and reasons have good intentions, it's not up to the Feds to decide, but the States and lower levels of government to decide who can and can't get a permit, license, or firearms.

Why is it up to them?

[Sociobiology]

no, but the leading source of guns used in crimes are private sales.
So they are more likely to be used for nefarious purposes.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOSPI91.PDF
Not sure where you are going with this tangent but, I'm game.

Well, you just said that 70% of private sales were between strangers.
*gestures*

and?

or do you not understand how probability works?
Oh I see the problem.
the majority of those private sales used in crimes are friends and family, read the source.
of guns used in crime
31% were purchased/gifted from friends or family
28% from the black market
27% from FFL
9% stolen.

60-70% of all sales are from FFL.
So private sales are more likely to be used for nefarious purposes than FFL purchases.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

It does not, in any way, say "purchased" from family and friends. It uses the word "got".
Which implies additional options, not even including the additional 9% of all firearms acquisitions which featured direct thefts, including from family members - and the 28% black market and fence (ie, handling of stolen property) acquisitions.

In the summer of 1991,13,986 inmates answered
questions in face-to-face interviews. The prisoners,
a scientific sample for the Nation, represented more
than 711,000 adults held in State correctional facilities.

If 16% used a firearm in their incarceration offence, and 27% of those firearms come from FFL (30,715 total firearms) and 60-70% of all firearms sales come from an FFL - then no, private sales are not 'more likely' to be used for nefarious deeds. Especially when only 55% of firearms acquisitions in crimes specifically necessitated purchase.

In 2010, there were 14.5 million background checks requested, 16 million in 2011. Only a very small percentage of these are rejected.

[Bug Out]

I agree that it should be up to each state to enforce it's own laws. The Fed has too much power over state government now. The Fed making laws for the states would be like the European Union making laws for every country in the Union. (That was stated so the ones that live in Europe could think about it like that.)
My state has mandatory background checks and you are supposed to have a permit to buy any pistol, including private sales. Records are kept by dealers, but not accessible without a warrant. Records are not required by non dealers. With a CCW, you can buy anything but class 3, and that with proper tax stamp. Is this example perfect? I don't think so. I think it's too restrictive, but livable. Anything more would be useless as far as trying to change the outcome of most of the mass slayings. The people that do such are criminals and therefore would not worry about laws.

[Sucrati]

Actually, the whole aspect of the Federal Government regulating firearms can't be done without a Constitutional Amendment.

why?
see current federal restrictions.

And as before, some states are rather restrictive with firearm registration while some are rather lenient... The odd thing is the more restrictive locales tend to have higher gun related violence for some reason...

source.
and remember you have to control for population density which is a major predictor of violent crime.

Besides, that would require the federal government to keep a database of your records until it sees fit to supposedly 'purge' your records after the background check. That would be in violation of the 4th amendment.

No it wouldn't, as long as it was protected by a warrant. see tax information and various other permits.

While your question and reasons have good intentions, it's not up to the Feds to decide, but the States and lower levels of government to decide who can and can't get a permit, license, or firearms.

Why is it up to them?

1. The 2nd Amendment, also the fact that their are militia acts spanning from the 1790s forcing the government to allow the civilian populace to have their small arms keep in line with military grade small arms.

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.

If the people are to have their right to keep and bear arms infringed by Congress (Legislatively), then the states cannot form or keep a well regulated militia in regards to keeping themselves defended against attack when they are threatened. This was made in order to allow the people to always outnumber the federal government when it comes to armed forces. The well regulated militia on the state level was to ensure that if the federal government indeed did turn against the states at large, then the states could fend off attacks. This also applies if the federal government winds up collapsing and the states could keep some amount of order and/or defense against land based foreign invasion.

As for the federal restrictions, in most cases, they would be deemed unconstitutional via the 9th and 10th Amendments (as a violation of usurping power from the states that did not voluntarily cede that power to the federal government). However, no one is bringing them up in court for the most part either.

2. Source 1: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_g ... roductive/
Source 2: http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm

I'll have to give you that, however, population density is not the only excuse or reason... usually more gun laws leads to lack of enforcement in most cases (take Chicago for example, very restrictive gun laws, very bad in regards to enforcement... most guns recovered there are from Illinois.)

Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ank-last-/ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

3. Hasn't stopped the government in regards to digital data. Especially email...

http://www.propublica.org/special/no-wa ... gital-data
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... -a-warrant
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ?mobile=nc

As the data that is needed would need to be digitized for compliance reasons and to ensure that the states are up to date in regards to one's personal information.

4. Unless the power was ceded to the federal government by the states, then the states (and by extension the locales inside said states) have the power to enact laws or regulations as they see fit. It's covered under the 9th and 10th amendments.

[Vindiria]

What can you do with bullets but whitout a gun to fire them?

[Fireye]

What can you do with bullets but whitout a gun to fire them?

Make a zip gun out of parts you find at the hardware store.

[Vindiria]

What can you do with bullets but whitout a gun to fire them?

Make a zip gun out of parts you find at the hardware store.

Can't you make your own bullets? You only need paper, Charcoal, Potassium nitrate, Sulfur and a steel marble. Very not hard to do

[Fireye]

Make a zip gun out of parts you find at the hardware store.

Can't you make your own bullets? You only need paper, Charcoal, Potassium nitrate, Sulfur and a steel marble. Very not hard to do

True, but Zip gun's for bullets you already have is a LOT easier than bullets for a gun, assuming basic reload isn't happening.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Make a zip gun out of parts you find at the hardware store.

Can't you make your own bullets? You only need paper, Charcoal, Potassium nitrate, Sulfur and a steel marble. Very not hard to do

Or, you know, some lead and some not really specialist equipment.

[Sociobiology]

why?
see current federal restrictions.


source.
and remember you have to control for population density which is a major predictor of violent crime.

1. The 2nd Amendment, also the fact that their are militia acts spanning from the 1790s forcing the government to allow the civilian populace to have their small arms keep in line with military grade small arms.

read the militia acts some time, the first puts all militias under direct command of the president, the second allows you to won muskets and black powder rifles, and only applies to "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45.
the third allow African Americans to serve, and the forth created the national guard and puts all state militaries of any kind under the direct control of the Army.
remember the constitution gives congress the power to determine the make up of the militia.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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.

If the people are to have their right to keep and bear arms infringed by Congress (Legislatively), then the states cannot form or keep a well regulated militia in regards to keeping themselves defended against attack when they are threatened.

so then why are federal firearms regulations legal, they have gone to court and have been upheld.

This was made in order to allow the people to always outnumber the federal government when it comes to armed forces.

wrong, otherwise there would be some kind of restriction to this effect.

The well regulated militia on the state level was to ensure that if the federal government indeed did turn against the states at large, then the states could fend off attacks.

just the opposite in fact, the militias were to insure the government could be defended without a large expensive standing army.

This also applies if the federal government winds up collapsing and the states could keep some amount of order and/or defense against land based foreign invasion.

if the federal government collapses guns are the least of your worries, food would be a much bigger problem.

As for the federal restrictions, in most cases, they would be deemed unconstitutional via the 9th and 10th Amendments (as a violation of usurping power from the states that did not voluntarily cede that power to the federal government). However, no one is bringing them up in court for the most part either.

No they wouldn't, state laws cannot supersede federal laws, the state cannot make a felony legal.

2. Source 1: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_g ... roductive/
Source 2: http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm

I'll have to give you that, however, population density is not the only excuse or reason... usually more gun laws leads to lack of enforcement in most cases (take Chicago for example, very restrictive gun laws, very bad in regards to enforcement... most guns recovered there are from Illinois.)

if your going to use such blatantly biases sources why even bother using sources.
comparing New York city to rural Nebraska as if the there was no difference in population desnisty.
Oh and England is one of the the most violent developed country short of the US, it is still TEN times less violent than the US.

And the first one is a study on bans, which no one here is advocating.

Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ank-last-/ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

your third link is broken and leads nowhere

3. Hasn't stopped the government in regards to digital data. Especially email...

http://www.propublica.org/special/no-wa ... gital-data
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... -a-warrant
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ?mobile=nc

As the data that is needed would need to be digitized for compliance reasons and to ensure that the states are up to date in regards to one's personal information.

And this has what to do with the accessibility of a federal database? unless you are proposing it would function via e-mail.

4. Unless the power was ceded to the federal government by the states, then the states (and by extension the locales inside said states) have the power to enact laws or regulations as they see fit. It's covered under the 9th and 10th amendments.

[/quote]
which has nothing to do with this. Sure the states can pass more stringent laws they cannot supersede federal law however.

[Lemanrussland]

Historical question: Were private citizens allowed to own pieces of field artillery during the early national period in the US?

I ask, because lots of people point out the difference between ordnance and small arms (that civilians are only entitled to own small arms, and nothing more), and I'm not exactly sure this is what the writers of the Bill of Rights actually intended.

[Sociobiology]

It does not, in any way, say "purchased" from family and friends. It uses the word "got".
Which implies additional options, not even including the additional 9% of all firearms acquisitions which featured direct thefts, including from family members - and the 28% black market and fence (ie, handling of stolen property) acquisitions.

In the summer of 1991,13,986 inmates answered
questions in face-to-face interviews. The prisoners,
a scientific sample for the Nation, represented more
than 711,000 adults held in State correctional facilities.

If 16% used a firearm in their incarceration offence, and 27% of those firearms come from FFL (30,715 total firearms) and 60-70% of all firearms sales come from an FFL - then no, private sales are not 'more likely' to be used for nefarious deeds.

so you don't know how probability works then, well then let me explain.
27% of firearms used in crimes is not 27% of the 60-70% of all firearm sales. To determine that exact number you would need to know the number of gun owners who are criminals.
So in fact with just the information given we cannot determine that number, however we can compare the percentages used in crimes to the general percentages to note the major disparity, showing that private purchases are overwhelmingly preferred by criminals, and a majority of those are family friend purchases.
The statement private sales are more likely to be used for nefarious purposes is completely supported by the numbers.
It is not a great leap to consider this may be due to the lack of a background check.

In 2010, there were 14.5 million background checks requested, 16 million in 2011. Only a very small percentage of these are rejected.

which actually helps my point.

[Sociobiology]

Historical question: Were private citizens allowed to own pieces of field artillery during the early national period in the US?

I ask, because lots of people point out the difference between ordnance and small arms (that civilians are only entitled to own small arms, and nothing more), and I'm not exactly sure this is what the writers of the Bill of Rights actually intended.

I know they would have due to the use of cannon on ships.
for Non-naval cannons I have no idea.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

It does not, in any way, say "purchased" from family and friends. It uses the word "got".
Which implies additional options, not even including the additional 9% of all firearms acquisitions which featured direct thefts, including from family members - and the 28% black market and fence (ie, handling of stolen property) acquisitions.

If 16% used a firearm in their incarceration offence, and 27% of those firearms come from FFL (30,715 total firearms) and 60-70% of all firearms sales come from an FFL - then no, private sales are not 'more likely' to be used for nefarious deeds.

so you don't know how probability works then, well then let me explain.
27% of firearms used in crimes is not 27% of the 60-70% of all firearm sales. To determine that exact number you would need to know the number of gun owners who are criminals.
So in fact with just the information given we cannot determine that number, however we can compare the percentages used in crimes to the general percentages to note the major disparity, showing that private purchases are overwhelmingly preferred by criminals, and a majority of those are family friend purchases.
The statement private sales are more likely to be used for nefarious purposes is completely supported by the numbers.
It is not a great leap to consider this may be due to the lack of a background check.

In 2010, there were 14.5 million background checks requested, 16 million in 2011. Only a very small percentage of these are rejected.

which actually helps my point.

For fuck's sake, Socio.
I know that 27% is not of the 60-70%
THAT WAS THE CRUX OF THE FUCKING POINT

If in a given year there are ten million or more submissions of background checks, one or so percent rejected (I forget the figure, though it's 0.7% of all submissions, and a few thousand of these are successfully appealed), and 60-70% of these are via an FFL, it contributes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more legal firearms than the <31,000 used in crimes for which people were in the correctional system in 1991 for committing.
In fact, non-FFL deals therefore contribute about 100 thousand firearms used in crimes of four or more million non-FFL acquisitions.

And seriously, this "you don't know statistics ololol" just fuck off with it, kindly.
I've had statistics modules for the last four years of education. I frankly don't care for it, but I understand the principles.
You saying it once, I almost understand, but to get it twice in two posts is just cuntish.

[Sociobiology]

so you don't know how probability works then, well then let me explain.
27% of firearms used in crimes is not 27% of the 60-70% of all firearm sales. To determine that exact number you would need to know the number of gun owners who are criminals.
So in fact with just the information given we cannot determine that number, however we can compare the percentages used in crimes to the general percentages to note the major disparity, showing that private purchases are overwhelmingly preferred by criminals, and a majority of those are family friend purchases.
The statement private sales are more likely to be used for nefarious purposes is completely supported by the numbers.
It is not a great leap to consider this may be due to the lack of a background check.



which actually helps my point.

For fuck's sake, Socio.
I know that 27% is not of the 60-70%
THAT WAS THE CRUX OF THE FUCKING POINT

If in a given year there are ten million or more submissions of background checks, one or so percent rejected (I forget the figure, though it's 0.7% of all submissions, and a few thousand of these are successfully appealed), and 60-70% of these are via an FFL, it contributes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more legal firearms than the <31,000 used in crimes for which people were in the correctional system in 1991 for committing.
In fact, non-FFL deals therefore contribute about 100 thousand firearms used in crimes of four or more million non-FFL acquisitions.

most firearms are not used in crime, well no shit, I don't know what you think you are proving with that.
Again I see no argument against the statement, private sales are more likely to be used for criminal purposes.
All I need for that statement is a disparity between the general method of acquisition and the methods preferred by criminals that shows a preference for private sales, which there clearly is, the trend nearly reverses between the two.

And seriously, this "you don't know statistics ololol" just fuck off with it, kindly.
I've had statistics modules for the last four years of education. I frankly don't care for it, but I understand the principles.

[/quote]
you have yet to demonstrate this in practice. When you demonstrate knowledge of the application of statistics I will stop treating you as if you are ignorant of the subject. If my statement came off as assholish I do apologize for that, I am only human.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

most firearms are not used in crime, well no shit, I don't know what you think you are proving with that.
again I see no argument against the statement, private sales are more likely to be used for criminal purposes.

Perhaps it could be that of the four to eight million firearms sold every year not via an FFL, which you have to have to sell firearms commercially (and therefore are presumably private sales), thirty thousand were used in crimes for which inmates in 1991 were still incarcerated? Crimes that probably included a whole bit of the Cold War era prior to that point?

The point I'm getting at, that your assertion of "private sales are more nefarious" is probably wholly incorrect.

[Sociobiology]

most firearms are not used in crime, well no shit, I don't know what you think you are proving with that.
again I see no argument against the statement, private sales are more likely to be used for criminal purposes.

Perhaps it could be that of the four to eight million firearms sold every year not via an FFL, which you have to have to sell firearms commercially (and therefore are presumably private sales), thirty thousand were used in crimes for which inmates in 1991 were still incarcerated?

Again whats your point. for that matter what are you actually trying to say? Are you claiming the numbers are false?

this isn't a false positive problem, It is not contingency. We have the criminal acquisition numbers.
We don't need to extrapolate them, the percentage of FFL purchases in the general population cannot change them.

The point I'm getting at, that your assertion of "private sales are more nefarious" is probably wholly incorrect.

but you have no evidence for this nor can you find a flaw in my evidence.
Nor was that my claim, private sales are more likely to be nefarious. which literally means the percentage of private sales used for nefarious purposes is higher than the percentage of FFL sales used for nefarious purposes.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Perhaps it could be that of the four to eight million firearms sold every year not via an FFL, which you have to have to sell firearms commercially (and therefore are presumably private sales), thirty thousand were used in crimes for which inmates in 1991 were still incarcerated?

Again whats your point. for that matter what are you actually trying to say? Are you claiming the numbers are false?

The point I'm getting at, that your assertion of "private sales are more nefarious" is probably wholly incorrect.

but you have no evidence for this nor can you find a flaw in my evidence.

The 'flaw' in your evidence is that you're asserting "31% got the handgun from family or friends" explicitly implies a private sale. It does not, or it would likely have used the same term "bought" as done so in the same infographic.
It's now only an assumption how many of these 31% of firearms (which are also specifically handguns, which I hadn't noticed before, which were carried by 13% of convicted criminals on the incarcerating offence) were sold as opposed to given. Or that they may have stolen them, and the inmate (after all, this 'survey' is a study on what inmates told interviewers) did not specify that the weapon had been stolen. Or whether or not these 'family members and friends' were other gang members or otherwise criminals who had used those firearms. Or even if they'd known these 'friends'. Straw purchasing, perhaps, which could be true no matter how genuine these 'friendships' and 'relations' were?

It's a pretty unquantifiable statement on either side. It's wholly ambiguous to literally all possibilities.

After all, 37% of all handguns came from outright thefts or a proxy theft (ie, the guy knew it was probably stolen). When those 27% of guys who bought their handguns at a store and were then imprisoned for using it, it strikes me that almost all of those will have in some way lied to acquire those. Fake ID. False address. Incorrect name. I'm fairly certain the 4473 predates the Brady Bill and NICS background check.

[Sociobiology]

Again whats your point. for that matter what are you actually trying to say? Are you claiming the numbers are false?



but you have no evidence for this nor can you find a flaw in my evidence.

The 'flaw' in your evidence is that you're asserting "31% got the handgun from family or friends" explicitly implies a private sale. It does not, or it would likely have used the same term "bought" as done so in the same infographic. It's now only an assumption how many of these 31% of firearms (which are also specifically handguns, which I hadn't noticed before, which were carried by 13% of convicted criminals on the incarcerating offence) were sold as opposed to given.

First it doesn't matter because black market sales and fences make up 28%
second a gift is still a private transaction unless it goes through a FFL (which some do)
Even if ALL friends and family acquisitions were gifts (which is absurd) it would still be true, because only 27% come from FFL.
For my statement to NOT be true, less than 8%11% of handguns used in crimes could come from private sales of all kinds.

Oh, and handguns make up 81% of firearms used in crimes, so it is entirely reasonable to stick to them because none of the other categories would show up as anything but noise.

Or that they may have stolen them, and the inmate (after all, this 'survey' is a study on what inmates told interviewers) did not specify that the weapon had been stolen.

actually it did, 9% of them were stolen from some source (including friends and family), I even listed this. And these are not included in the other categories.

Or whether or not these 'family members and friends' were other gang members or otherwise criminals who had used those firearms. Or even if they'd known these 'friends'. Straw purchasing, perhaps, which could be true no matter how genuine these 'friendships' and 'relations' were?

which matters for my statement, why?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Or that they may have stolen them, and the inmate (after all, this 'survey' is a study on what inmates told interviewers) did not specify that the weapon had been stolen.

actually it did, 9% of them were stolen from some source (including friends and family), I even listed this. And these are not included in the other categories.

Or whether or not these 'family members and friends' were other gang members or otherwise criminals who had used those firearms. Or even if they'd known these 'friends'. Straw purchasing, perhaps, which could be true no matter how genuine these 'friendships' and 'relations' were?

which matters for my statement, why?

Which means you ignored what I said.
I also regarded those 9% stated for thefts. Did you ever consider that the 31% from friends and family (note the use of the highly ambiguous word 'got') might not have been considered thefts by the person?
It's something you can't state one way or the other. The same for straw purchasing which sidesteps laws pretty heftily even today.

The intent under which these guns were acquired does not change the source, but does change the nature of the source.