After this post, I'm going to attempt to drop this whole gun debate. First, because it doesn't really interest me that much. Sometimes I say things or point them out because they're interesting enough for a few posts, but not a never-ending debate. Second, 3 on 1 may be fun in other instances, but in a debate it is not only too time-consuming, but a bit overwhelming. <G>
However, one last thought regarding the crime drop and the Brady Bill. I was not talking only about CA
An implied syllogism, but a false one:
Between 1991 and 1998, without implementing significant gun control legislation..., California's homicide rate dropped 48.9% versus 31.9% for the rest of the U.S. ... Even choosing a different year to start the comparison, such as ... 1994 (when Brady became effective, February 28, 1994), homicide and violent crime declined faster in California than nationally (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1991-1998). Evidence indicates the Brady Act is not a significant factor in violent crime reduction, or as the case of California suggests, neither were any gun of the control measures that were enacted during the 90's.
On a national level:
Reported Crime
Since 1993, the number of crimes committed with firearms has declined, falling to levels last experienced in the mid 1980s.
Injury
From 1993 through 1997, less than 1% of serious nonfatal violent victimizations resulted in gunshot wounds.. The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.
Arrestees and offenders
Weapons arrestees are predominantly male, age 18 or over, and white. However, weapons arrest rates per 100,000 population are highest for teens and for blacks.
According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft, and 28% had acquired it through an illegal market such as a drug dealer or fence, 10% had stolen at least one gun, and 11% had sold or traded stolen guns.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
