"No Gun Zones"..... These say all you need to know.....

[Logical]

[rfranklin]

1. Just get back from the NTA seminar?

Sure seems like it.

[Logical]

4. NTA?

National Travel Association?

National Trappers Association?

Nigerian Television Authority?

National Teachers Associates?

National Taxidermists Association?

National Telefilm Associates?

I am not sure what you mean!

[rfranklin]

56. Look to the left of the T...that's where I am...

So sorry, my ineptitude.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logical]

5. So you are saying gun free zones are safer than guns allowed zones? n-t

[jpak]

7. Yup

n/t

[Logical]

8. Do you actually ever expand and provide any proof of anything you post? Nope! n-t

[jpak]

9. Then prove they are less safe - numbers please

yup

[Logical]

10. LOL.....you made the claim. Show your proof. As usual. No fact ever from you. Just emotion. n-t

[jpak]

11. You have no data to back up the stupid claims in the OP - none

yup

[eqfan592]

16. Actually, that's not true.

The Lott/Landes study back in 1999 showed that multiple shooting incidents were more likely to occur in areas where guns were prohibited than in areas where guns were permitted by law abiding citizens. Schools, most businesses, post offices, etc.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637


Now it's your turn to not bother to read the contents of the paper and dismiss it out of hand.

yup

[jpak]

17. No - multiple gun shootings occur where large numbers of people congregate

schools, work places, post offices - and where people have grievances

lots of "targets"

yup

[eqfan592]

18. Lots of "targets"...

....that are unarmed because of the various laws and policies that govern such areas.

But hey, nice attempt at a dodge!

yup

[jpak]

20. Yeah, we should arm middle schoolers and kindergartners - stupid gun laws!!111

sheesh

[eqfan592]

21. lol, typical jpak...

...when shown to be incorrect, you back peddle and toss up straw men as fast as you possibly can.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. "...where people have grievances..."

You mean like police stations? Good point. The cops should really be disarmed for their own safety and to avoid law suits.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Why haven't we seen a mass shooting at a gun show?

There are lots of them and lots of people there.

[DanTex]

47. LOL. John Lott. There's a credible source...

Just so you know who you're citing, here's his blog:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Yes, he's a full-on right-wing nutjob (but I'm sure you knew that). On top of NRA propaganda, you will find such winning entries as:

"Very nice article on Michele Bachmann in the WSJ"
"Palin knows American History better than her liberal critics"

John Lott. Might as well cite Rumsfeld about WMDs in Iraq...

[eqfan592]

50. Thanks DanTex!

Was waiting for somebody to come along just like yourself.

Way to do EXACTLY AS I SAID YOU WOULD and not even bother to look at the material in question, and instead simply attack the source as a "right wing nut job." Here's a hint, sometimes even right wing nut jobs are able to regurgitate statistical data and not get it wrong, and sometimes the most progressive source in the world will completely drop the ball.

If you ever feel like actually attempting to show the numbers were wrong, then please do feel free. Until then, I'll just expect you to continue to behave exactly as predicted.

[DanTex]

51. You're welcome!

Glad my familiarity with the gun literature could be of assistance -- it's always important to keep in mind who you're citing!

Let me know if you've got some global warming research by ExxonMobil you want me to check out!

[eqfan592]

52. Actually, there's a pretty big difference there.

I could pretty easily punch holes in any research done by ExxonMobil because there would be more issues with the research than simply the source. You, however, cannot counter the stats that show the propensity for multiple victim shootings to occur in gun free zones, otherwise you would likely have produced it instead of only attacking the source. If you have such counter evidence, produce it. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.

[DanTex]

59. Aren't you the one who's always citing the NAS study that found Lott's research on CCW not credible?

Haven't you been pushing the "no connection" argument up until now? Maybe I have you confused with someone else. Or maybe you conveniently "forget" about your own sources when they say things that would contradict your other sources.

As far as your idea that analyzing data just requires the ability to "regurgitate statistical data and not get it wrong", that should tell anyone reading all they need to know about your familiarity with the practice of data analysis. Analyzing data properly requires both skill and honesty. In social sciences in particular, it is important to determine whether the sources of a study are biased or likely to be snooping through data to find the conclusions they are looking for. Which is exactly what John Lott does, and this is why his work on CCW has been thoroughly discredited, for example:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343781

So yes, the fact that your research comes from a right-winger who has been discredited does indeed matter. Your source is now going on about how Sarah Palin is right about history, and the "liberal media" is wrong.

[eqfan592]

62. This isn't a complex data analysis problem...

...this is a simple question with a binary response. But hey nice try tho. Also, did you bother to read the appendix of the NAS study? You should do that.

[DanTex]

67. Actually it's not a binary response, and it is a complex problem.

Did you bother and read the paper that you just cited? The response variables are number of multiple shootings and number of deaths in multiple shootings. Those are not binary. Not that "binary response" would imply "simple" in any case.

When you get around to reading the paper, you will find that this is actually not a "simple question" to answer (constructing the dataset, a time-series aspect, choosing control variables for regression analysis, etc.). I imagine that even your buddy John Lott would agree with me here.

After that, I suggest you read the paper I linked to in my last post, which shows what Lott+Mustard got wrong in Lott's best-known study supporting shall-issue. It goes a long way towards explaining the methodological choices that need to be made when doing this kind of research, and it will leave you without too much confidence in Lott's research.

Finally, re: NAS
More news about your constantly changing position! So now you do believe that gun laws affect homicide rates, which means you don't actually agree with the conclusions of the NAS panel, you only agree with the one dissenting voice! Interesting that you would keep citing a panel that you believe to be so flawed that only one member is credible.

[eqfan592]

68. My oh my...

...DanTex, you just loooooooooove putting words in peoples mouths, don't you? Please say where I said that the only person I agreed with on the NAS panel was the dissenting opinion? Oh, that's right NO WHERE. I was simply pointing out that the NAS study was no where near as clear cut as you were implying in your post. So no, my position is not "constantly changing."

And yes, I did read the paper. Yes, there were factors taken into account, but at its most basic form it IS a binary response; when extenuating circumstances are taken into account, where do more multiple victim shootings take place, inside or outside of gun free zones? If it is your position that more such shootings take place outside of such zones, or that there is no significant difference, then I ask you to please site evidence supporting such a claim. Admittedly the Lott study in question deals with this indirectly (it covers shall issue states vs non-shall issue states) but I believe it remains relevant to the discussion at hand.

[palmtree guy]

13. for starters

more people were killed in Columbine one day, than have EVER been killed at the 3 local gun ranges, in fact our 3 ranges have NEVER had a fatality, or even an injury that I am aware of!!
yup

[DonP]

23. Does hammer bite count as an injury? Ntxt

[oneshooter]

39. Depends on whether it is a scratch or a missing piece of thumb web! n/t

[spin]

14. Yeah, right!

Yup

[obxhead]

3. Clearly a gun is the only way to defend yourself.

:eyes:

[spin]

12. A firearm is the last resort and only to be used in those times ...

when a person faces serious bodily injury or death at the hands of an attacker and other options are likely to fail.

Self defense training may provide a means of fighting and defeating an attacker and there are also items such as pepper spray which can be very effective. Much depends on the situation including the difference in size and physical abilities of the attacker and the victim and if the attacker is armed and with what weapon.

Often the victim is able to stop the attack without firing a shot, the mere presence of a firearm in the victim's hands often causes the predator to run. Handguns are not as lethal as portrayed in the movies and on TV, a shotgun loaded with buckshot is far more deadly as are most rifles. With a handgun much depends on caliber and shot placement. With a handgun you might have to shoot an attacker multiple times before you stop his attack.

Handguns are not appropriate self defense weapons for everyone. Many people who own them find themselves unwilling to shoot another individual even when such an action is legal and appropriate. An important question for anyone to ask themselves before they decide to own a firearm for self defense is, "Can I shoot another person if truly necessary knowing that there is a possibility of killing him?" Hesitation can lead to the attack disarming the victim and using the firearm against him.

Handguns are also difficult to master and even the police with all their training often miss their target on the street. Stray bullets endanger innocent people. It takes time and effort to learn how to shoot a handgun and while, with practice and time, you can become very proficient on a target range, real life and death situations cause adrenaline to flow and your skill can be adversely effected.

If you do shoot someone you may suffer serious psychological problems as well as very expensive legal problems.

Owning a firearm is a serious decision that requires knowing both your strengths and weaknesses. If you suffer from anger management problems, abuse drugs or alcohol, suffer from serious mental issues or live in a volatile relationship with a significant other - then firearms are not for you. Obtaining a concealed weapons permit and actually carrying a handgun in public is another choice that requires careful consideration. Are you willing to take the time and effort necessary to become as proficient as possible with your carry weapon? If you view yourself as a vigilante or a super hero with a Ramnbo personality, then I would advise that you forget your Walter Mitty fantasies and not "pack heat."

There is no doubt that a firearm can be an excellent tool for self defense in the hands of a skilled and responsible owner.

[obxhead]

15. I don't doubt

that a firearm can be an excellent tool for self defense in the hands of a skilled and responsible owner.

All of these posters/signs imply that the ONLY way to defend yourself is with a gun though. It's utter BS. It also implies that by going without a gun you WILL become a victim, which is also utter BS.

[Hoyt]

25. Hey, the 4% who can't leave home without their gun believe/fear a lot of utter BS.

Some of them carry more than one gun too, just in case their prime weapon gets taken from them. It's truly laughable.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

31. I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry regularly ...

but I have been shooting handguns for over forty years.

Along the way I did get some self defense training from a excellent instructor. He emphasized the importance of situational awareness and stressed how important it was to avoid fighting unless truly necessary. He taught techniques for disarming an attacker armed with a knife or a gun and how a tightly rolled magazine can be an effective tool for self defense.

The instructor was a 8th degree black belt in Judo and also held belts in Karate and Jujitsu. I remember one time he said, "A man with a 45 auto is a 9th degree black belt."

But I agree with your statement that there are many effective ways to defend yourself and also that there is usually no necessity to carry a firearm for self defense.

I've carried a concealed handgun for over 15 years and have yet to draw it. I hope that I never have to and I seriously doubt that I will. Unfortunately, I don't own or have the skills to use a crystal ball and I don't posses any abilities to predict the future. I carry a handgun because I like to be prepared for anything life chooses to throw at me and like to have a number of options available.

Unless you live in an extremely crime ridden neighborhood, there is little chance that you will ever have to use a concealed firearm. Normally if you just practice reasonable situational awareness and don't walk around with a cell phone glued to your ear you should avoid the majority, if not all, of the potential criminal attacks. In fact if you are simply alert to the people around you, studies have shown that you are far less likely to be attacked. Predators pick on the weakest or the most foolish in the herd. The smart ones realize that many people in our nation carry concealed weapons and have no wish to encounter an armed citizen. Often people that carry concealed are far more alert to their environment. To the mugger or rapist, alertness can be a warning sign.

But if you know yourself well enough to know that you are capable of the tremendous responsibly of carrying a concealed firearm and you have or are willing to obtain the necessary proficiency with your weapon, I see no problem in getting a carry license and carrying on a regular basis. It's an individual decision.

My daughter had a background in judo and jujitsu and obtained her first concealed carry license many years ago. I had trained her in how to shoot starting at nine years old and she was and still is very proficient with a handgun. She allowed the permit to lapse when she had very young children as she worried about the possibility that they might access her weapon if she was careless. When the children grew older she reapplied and obtained her concealed weapons permit.

Two years ago she attracted the attentions of a stalker. She did nothing to cause the stalker to target her and had no relationship with the individual. He was also stalking one of my daughter's friends who he had known and attempted to have a relationship with but my daughter's friend had rejected him. He appeared to be an individual who love to terrorize women and he had a criminal record of alcohol abuse and violence. My daughter filed a restraining order against him, but he violated it on a daily basis. Of course, she reported his actions to the police but as often happens they were never present to witness the violations.

The fact that she had a concealed weapons permit and the ability to use her concealed weapon was very reassuring to her during the one year period of time that he harassed her. She had no desire to shoot the stalker but had he physically attempted to attack her, she would have. I doubt if the stalker ever knew she carried a firearm. My daughter did have the training in judo and jujitsu but she is only slightly over five foot tall and weighs just over 100 pounds on a good day. The stalker was much taller, in good physical shape and weighed at least 180 pounds.

Eventually the stalker was arrested and spent several weekends in jail. The judge warned him that if he persisted he might face a year or more in prison. He apparently learned his lesson and has stopped bothering my daughter.

In my daughter's case the fact that she had a carry permit proved to be a wise decision. She was able to view the stalker as more of a pain in the ass than a serious threat. The fact that he was unable to scare her might have deterred him from actually attacking.

But I don't recommend that everybody run out and get a carry permit and start packing heat. It most cases it is not needed and unnecessarily expensive in our current economy when you consider the cost of the firearm and the license as well as the cost to become proficient with the weapon.

However, I do not discourage those with the proper mindset from getting a concealed carry license. It is a decision that requires a lot of thought.

[eqfan592]

32. Very well said.

"But I don't recommend that everybody run out and get a carry permit and start packing heat. It most cases it is not needed and unnecessarily expensive in our current economy when you consider the cost of the firearm and the license as well as the cost to become proficient with the weapon.

However, I do not discourage those with the proper mindset from getting a concealed carry license. It is a decision that requires a lot of thought."

I think I liked this part the most. Thanks. :) :toast:

[spin]

33. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[Scuba]

6. Dogs are great for early warning systems. Diverting problems works well too...

<img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" />

[Tesha]

36. You know, that sign pretty much sums up gun owners, doesn't it?

And don't bother alerting on my post; *YOU'RE* the
one who provided this tasty bit of evidence and it
matches the publicly stated position of at least
several of the posters in this forum that they
would *NOT* assist.

Tesha

[eqfan592]

37. Oh, please do tell me what exactly you think that's evidence of...

...and how it applies to all gun owners?

And as an aside, do you just get off on making broad generalizations about large groups of people? Because you do it an awful lot.

[oneshooter]

38. Why should we "assist", we are not cops. And as a loyal

anti-gun owner you would not want to assist you, would you? We, as CHL holders are responsible for the safety and well being of ourselves and our family. You, as a non CHL anti carrier can rest assured that we will honer your wishes and NOT assist you.

Happy now?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Tesha]

40. Thank you for confirming my point.

It's the exact same chain of thought that leads so
many people to buy SUVs: they make the choice thinking
that they will be safer in the bigger vehicle, but as
every vehicle on the road becomes an SUV, the advantage
is lost. And, in fact, in an "even match" or especially
all on its own, the SUV is (demonstrably) a less safe
vehicle than an equivalent car.

So the ultimate effect of a bunch of individuals each
thinking of themselves is to (possibly) make themselves
momentarily safer (compared to the rest of us) but the
ultimate effect is to make us all a lot less safe.

It's the same situation as with the proliferation
of guns that so many of the folks in this forum
strongly advocate for.

Tesha

[oneshooter]

41. So do you deny that you would refuse help from a CHL holder? n/t

[Tesha]

44. Frankly, I don't live in the state of constant fear that so many gun "partisans" seem to live in.

I honestly don't worry how such a low-probability
scenario would play out.

And why should I waste the thought when so many
gun owners have stated here that *THEY HAVE NO
PLANS TO HELP*?

Tesha

[oneshooter]

46. Nice dodge. Please answer the question asked. n/t

[Tesha]

55. I *DID* answer your question; you just don't like the answer. Tough. (NT)

[eqfan592]

57. Lol, no, you didn't, but nice try. Nt

[Tesha]

58. Opinions obviously differ. (NT)

[cleanhippie]

61. Opinions do, facts don't. And you lack any facts at all.

[Tesha]

63. And that statement is just your opinion.

I realize that you think making such a statement is some
sort of convincing argument but in fact, it isn't. It's rather
more like a "just this side of the line" personal attack
made by the usual tag-team of pro-gun posters.

Tesha

[cleanhippie]

66. You have no facts. Thats an observation, not an opinion.

[Hoopla Phil]

64. No you didn't. It is a simple yes or no answer that you refuse to give.

Would you refuse help from a CHL holder when faced with unlawful deadly force?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Your analogy fails, as you cannot demonstrate that having a CHL holder near you is harmful.

Or is this an example of Robert Bork's "moral harm"?

[cleanhippie]

60. As usual, you are wrong. Again!

http://www.vehix.com/articles/safety/safest-suvs---2011-large-suvs

[ileus]

54. grabbers make easy victims...

[DWC]

19. Every random, mass shooting in America,

at least in the last 50 years, has occurred in a "gun free zone". No such event has ever occurred at an NRA or Law Enforcement convention. Just because someone is a criminal or crazy does not mean they are stupid.

Criminals or crazies do not comply the "no gun" signs or law. That is one of the defining characteristics of a criminal or a crazy. If they decide to stack up a body count so their name will be remembered and then go out in a blaze of glory via suicide-by-cop, what better place to do it than where their victims are closely packed and unable to fight back?

These cartoons may seem funny to some but the facts on which they are based are deadly serious.

Semper Fi,

[Hoyt]

26. Loughner wasn't in a gun free zone. Heck, Giffords is rumored to pack. Lot of good it did her.

At least one other guy was toting and he admits he almost shot the wrong guy and was equally ineffective.

Gunners dream of being the cowboy that saves the day, but it's usually over before they manage to get the dang thing out of their pants. The rest of us are lucky, or more innocent folks would be shot. All that training shooting silhouette targets, endless practicing drawing in front of a mirror, and the "dodge and shoot" technique some here say they've practiced, are of little help in crowds.

[gejohnston]

28. Correction about the guy who almost shot the wrong guy

First, he as not there. He as across the street, and ran over. It was over when he got there. His gun was still holstered when he sat someone holding the gun. He saw that the slide was back and he was told that it was under control. He did not draw, nor did he almost shoot anyone.
A cop would have had his weapon drawn, reducing the reaction time.

One more thing, from what I read, it was not a random shooting. JL targeted her for some reason.

[Straw Man]

30. "Dodge and shoot" again?

Do you have a cite for that? Second time I'm asking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=425948&mesg_id=426399

[oneshooter]

42. Yea he will DODGE the question and SHOOT back with bullshit. n/t

[spin]

35. However the guy you mention DID NOT shoot the wrong guy ...

and how many cases can you link to where a person with a concealed carry permit shot an innocent person while using his firearm in legitimate self defense.

Some estimates show that 10 million people in our nation have concealed carry permits and in my opinion that estimate is low.

Just because there is a shooting in a crowd doesn't mean that I or other people with a carry permit are going to whip our firearms out and begin shooting. I am NOT a cop or a vigilante. I will use my firearm to defend myself or someone I love but I will be very hesitant to interfere in any shooting which I am not involved in and lack knowledge of what is actually occurring. For example how can I be sure that the person shooting is not an undercover police officer?

If I am directly involved in a situation and am under attack and have reason to fear for my health or my life I will use my concealed weapon. In most cases this will occur at extremely close range and I will do everything in my power to avoid endangering innocent people.

I have absolutely no wish to ever have to use my firearm. I don't dream about being a cowboy or a Rambo and I realize that if I ever do shoot an attacker I face possible extremely expensive legal problems and may even suffer psychological problems. I have absolutely no desire to spend the rest of my life suffering from nightmares resulting from my shooting someone. If I did legitimately use a firearm for self defense, I would not view myself as a hero but merely a lucky survivor.

I feel that most "gunners" feel as I do. If you were correct and many people with concealed carry permits were willing to shoot at the drop of a hat surely we would have statistics that prove that allowing people to carry concealed weapons is a terrible idea.

[DWC]

45. Loughner's attack was not random. It was a targeted attempt

to assassinate Gifford and her supporters and you know it.

I hold to my statement which is factually accurate which you know as well.

Your efforts to misdirect and denigrate simply proves Ron White is right.

Semper Fi,

[HankyDubs]

22. Since the 1934 NFA

Effectively made it illegal for nearly all persons to own grenade launchers and machine guns, why is it that your average criminal does not have these weapons?

Because this whole argument is bullshit?

Yup.

[eqfan592]

24. Wow, possibly...

...the worst comparison I have ever seen in my life. And it totally ignores the data available on multiple shooting incidents.

Just awesome.

[gejohnston]

27. no for a couple of reasons

First, few criminals (outside of the mob) used machine guns to start with. Even Dillenger stole his from the police and national guard) before the NFA was enacted. Machine guns and rocket launchers are commonly used by drug gangs in Mexico. In Europe, even though handguns are still used in most crimes, but submachine guns are used more there than they are in the US).
Very few people owned them in general because they were very expensive (a Thompson SMG as about $6k in todays money. Now you know why there are no heriloom Thompsons) and their limited usefulness.

Edited to add one more thing, while Canada has been registering and licencing handguns since 1934, they started regisering machine guns in the 1950s, and froze private ownership of them 1977 with the creation of a "prohibited" class license along with unrestricted and restricted. This law was passed mostly because of violent attacks of Quebec seperatists.

[Euromutt]

53. What do you consider "your average criminal"?

Over 75% of violent crime, even in the United States, doesn't involve use of firearms, so we'd have to conclude that the "average criminal" doesn't have them, very possibly because he doesn't feel the need. Heck, something in order of 28% of robberies involve a firearm, and that's the violent crime (apart from homicide) in which firearms are used most often.

The NFA has been effective to some degree in keeping automatic weapons and destructive devices out of criminal hands, but that's been aided to a large extent by the fact that other types of firearm are more readily available. By contrast, in western Europe, handguns are somewhat more difficult to come by--they typically have to be smuggled from the former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria or Turkey--and as a result, the margin of difficulty between acquiring a handgun and and acquiring an SMG is far smaller. Use of SMGs is more prevalent, both in absolute and relative numbers, in the UK than in the US. Here's a handful of examples from the past decade:
"Gun gang jailed for nine years each" (Manchester, June 15, 2001):

(Photo caption) A Skorpion sub-machine gun was found by police

"Three jailed for gun rampage" (South London, March 18, 2002):

Unarmed police were also shot at with an Uzi sub-machine gun as the gang fled from outside a Croydon nightclub where a man had been shot.

"Killer took his own life" (Lincoln, August 30, 2002):

Two half brothers were executed at close range by a man with a "paranoid psychosis" who subsequently committed suicide, a coroner has ruled. The body of Jeremy Earls, 34, was found in the back of his car parked in woods at Kelby, Lincolnshire on 8 August, 2001. He had a single gunshot wound to the top of his head and an Israeli-made Uzi nine-millimetre gun was lying nearby.

"Gunmen fired more than 30 shots" (Birmingham, January 3, 2003):

At least two weapons, including a sub-machine gun, were used in the shootings outside a hairdressing salon in the city on Thursday.

"£20,000 reward for brother murder" (East London, February 1, 2006):

Barrington Williams-Samuels, 19, was shot in the head as 17 bullets were fired from a sub-machine gun into a car containing him and his sister.

"TV appeal over murdered doorman" (London, October 29, 2007):

According to witnesses the gunman was standing about 30m (98 feet) from the entrance to the club when he pulled a machine gun from under his coat and opened fire. <...> Det Insp Tim Neligan said at least 18 bullets were fired by the gunman, who is thought to live in the area.

"DNA match 'led to murder arrest'" (Birmingham, April 21, 2008):

Mr Sabir, who was known as Shabba, was shot 16 times with a sub-machine gun in Lozells Road in the city five years ago.

"Killed boy 'mistaken for brother'" (London, April 25, 2008):

Michael Dosunmu was asleep when the two men shot him with a sub-machine gun last February, the court heard.

"Dealers shot dead in cocaine row" (St. Albans, June 24, 2008):

Three drug dealers were shot dead with a sub-machine gun in Hertfordshire in a row over cocaine, a court has heard.

Keith Cowell, 42, his son Matthew, 17, and Tony Dulieu, 33, from Essex, were killed at the Cowell's Bishop's Stortford house on 28 August, 2007.

"Three jailed over shooting death" (London, February 17, 2009):

Balaclava-clad Wayne Collins, 26, fired nine bullets from a sub-machine gun, killing Mark Tredinnick in Benskins Lane, Romford, Essex, in June 2007.

"Could Turkish and Kurdish gangs become new 'mafia'?" (London, October 21, 2010):

Armed with a Croatian-made Agram sub-machine gun, <Yusuf Arslan> flagged down a Ford Transit van in a Tottenham street. He fired four shots at the occupants, Nasir Demir and Hamit Koban, but they escaped serious injury by reversing the van away at high speed.

"Men jailed for Hoxton gun murder of Agnes Sina-Inakoju" (London, April 12, 2011):

The murder weapon - a 9mm Agram sub-machine gun - was used in six other shootings, the court heard.

Police investigating the murder found an arsenal of deadly weapons, including a loaded Mac-10 sub-machine gun, a loaded shotgun and ammunition and a loaded .38 revolver.

The Mac-10 was used in four other shootings, the court heard.

That's not an exhaustive listing, and even then, it's only incidents in England (i.e. I haven't listed any in Northern Ireland).

To this, I can add the murder of Hans van Geenen on the A73 highway near Nijmegen, the Netherlands, in September 2008. Van Geenen was a (relatively minor) marijuana-grower who was murdered by competitors; they used two SMGs to fire over a hundred rounds at the car in which Van Geenen was traveling.

In April 2007, the maximum-security court building known as "the Bunker" in Amsterdam was fired on with what was the Dutch news media described as a grenade launcher. The trial of organized criminal and extortionist Willem Holleeder was due to start the next morning, and the attack was probably a warning from certain associates from the former Yugoslavia not to turn state's evidence.

So to recap, I think American gun-wielding criminals predominantly use handguns because handguns are easier to get than Title II stuff, while still being adequate for their requirements, so it's not worth the effort to smuggle or illicitly manufacture SMGs for the criminal market. Note that SMGs--especially more primitive models--can actually be easier and cheaper to manufacture than a good many handguns; the Polish, Danish and Norwegian resistance cranked out Sten guns in bicycle repair shops.

[WatsonT]

69. Because it's hard to rob someone with a grenade launcher?

Why don't they all just use mortars? I mean what better way to hold someone at gunpoint than with a wildly inaccurate piece of artillery?

[Tripod]

49. k&r

I have a story!