Gun Permit

[Sociobiology]

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.


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 actually bloody says "9% stole the handgun from a retail outlet, a friend, or a family member, or in a burglary."

It's something you can't state one way or the other.

Yes I damn well can read the source. "9% stole the handgun from a retail outlet, a friend, or a family member, or in a burglary."

For my statement to NOT be true, less than 8% 11% of handguns used in crimes could come from private sales of all kinds.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Why 8%?

[Sociobiology]

Why 8%?

sorry 11% that's what I get for doing math without paper.
for the number of private sales used in crimes to be representative( best case 70/30) or less than representative of the normal population acquisition numbers it has to be less than 11% of all handguns used in crimes.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Well, 73.5% of all inmates serving terms in 1991 convicted of "violent crimes" (36% of all inmates) had priors that today would probably invalidate them from firearms ownership.
I would assume that use of a firearm would immediately bump you up to commission of a 'violent crime' - comprising the incarcerating offences of 46.6% of inmates - so about 16.8% of all inmates would have likely today been invalidated from lawful firearms ownership. Funnily enough, this is about the same percent as those who used a firearm in their offence (contrary to your belief I know nothing of statistics, it's pretty clear that on a Venn Diagram these two would have a fair bit of intersection, but not total intersection).

While I can't be bothered to combine the maths from both pages 4(?) and 19, I'm sure it will result in there being most of the acquisitions would today be considered illegal acquisitions.

Though you're right, we've spent so long being pedantic over these figures I don't even know why we're arguing over them anymore.

[Sociobiology]

Well, 73.5% of all inmates serving terms in 1991 convicted of "violent crimes" (36% of all inmates) had priors that today would probably invalidate them from firearms ownership.
I would assume that use of a firearm would immediately bump you up to commission of a 'violent crime' - comprising the incarcerating offences of 46.6% of inmates - so about 16.8% of all inmates would have likely today been invalidated from lawful firearms ownership. Funnily enough, this is about the same percent as those who used a firearm in their offence (contrary to your belief I know nothing of statistics, it's pretty clear that on a Venn Diagram these two would have a fair bit of intersection, but not total intersection).

While I can't be bothered to combine the maths from both pages 4(?) and 19, I'm sure it will result in there being most of the acquisitions would today be considered illegal acquisitions.

which has no impact on may statement.

Though you're right, we've spent so long being pedantic over these figures I don't even know why we're arguing over them anymore.

I know why I am, I don't know about you.

[Ryan12]

i 100% agree with op. In order for a person to get a hunting license it is mandatory in most if not all require a firearms safety certificate. Well why is it that hunters must have safety class but those who want a gun shouldn't?. People may say the government would know if you have a gun. Well no just because you have the abillity to have a gun doesn't mean you will get one

[Essos]

i 100% agree with op. In order for a person to get a hunting license it is mandatory in most if not all require a firearms safety certificate. Well why is it that hunters must have safety class but those who want a gun shouldn't?. People may say the government would know if you have a gun. Well no just because you have the abillity to have a gun doesn't mean you will get one

I'm not sure exactly what your incoherence is trying to convey, but at least in Virginia you require a HUNTER safety course, which is not in fact a FIREARM safety course. This is so you do not go out acting like a moron and get a bolt through your chest because someone thought you were a deer. This is also so that you don't go out acting like a moron and shoot someone in the chest because you thought they were a deer.