DSCN0531

Right up there with the laughable and oft-refuted claim that “90% of Americans support universal background checks” is the equally laughable “statistic” that 40% of gun sales happen without a NICS check. It’s trotted out by the media and members of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex (redundant, I know) in an attempt to justify UBCs in order to close the dreaded “gun show loophole.” The NRAILA’s out with a useful takedown of that bogus 40% figure that our intellectually dishonest lazy friends love to regurgitate. Make the jump for still more truth about guns . . .

For years, gun control advocates have been peddling the claim that “40 percent of gun sales do not go through background checks.” Recently the claim has made its way into several news outlets, including the Las Vegas SunUSA Today, and the New York Times. The claim that 40 percent of gun sales do not go through a federal background check is false and comes from a decades-old survey that has been widely debunked . . .

I want to caution you against repeating that claim. The facts are below.

  • Media outlets including the Richmond Times-Dispatchand the Washington Post have concluded that this claim is false.  Washington Post gave the claim 3 out of 4 Pinochios for being way off target.
  • Most of the survey covered sales before there was a federal background check system.
  • The 1994 survey was conducted eight months after the Brady Act went into effect, mandating background checks on individuals seeking to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. Survey participants were asked about their gun acquisitions going back two years. Some of the participants likely made gun purchases before the Brady Act, when they were not required to undergo federal background checks.
  • Self-reports are inherently unreliable – not actual data of sales.
  • Only a small group of gun owners — 251 people — answered the survey question about the origin of their weapons. Some of the gun owners were not sure how they had gotten their guns, answering “probably” or “probably not” on whether they got the gun from a licensed firearm dealer.
  • Additionally, the federal survey simply asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) do background checks, only those perceived as being FFLs were counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no idea that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and so the survey underestimating the number of sales covered by the checks.
  • The researchers gave this number for all transactions, including gifts, not just “sales.” Count only guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a job requirement or won through raffles, and 85 percent went through federally licensed gun dealers; just 15 percent would’ve been transferred without a background check.
  • Economist John Lott, the author of several landmark studies on the real-world impact of gun control, has concluded that if you take out transfers of guns either between FFLs or between family members, the remaining number of transfers falls to about 10 percent. Lott stated, “We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits.” (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/op-ed-truth-background-checks)

Facts on “how criminals get their guns”:

  • How criminals get guns—According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the vast majority of criminals in state prison for gun crimes get guns through theft, on the black market, from a drug dealer or “on the street.” Less than one percent get guns from gun shows.
  • Straw purchasers—According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), “The most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent . . . .” Straw purchasers are people who pass background checks and buy guns for criminals, defeating the background check system.
  • Stolen guns—According to the BJS, “about 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010.” The FBI’s stolen firearm file contained over 2 million reports as of March 1995.The BATFE has reported “Those that steal firearms commit violent crimes with stolen guns, transfer stolen firearms to others who commit crimes, and create an unregulated secondary market for firearms, including a market for those who are prohibited by law from possessing a gun.” Even gun control supporters have said, “approximately 500,000 guns are stolen each year from private citizens. . . . Obviously, these stolen guns go directly into the hands of criminals.” A study conducted by gun control supporters found that in 1994 “About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms.”

Recommended For You

58 Responses to NRA Debunks Bogus Universal Background Check Justification

    • Yes, this is quite clear as you read some of the responses below. People who blame the victims of crime (those who have had guns stolen) for other crimes. People who think it’s reasonable to require portable vaults be installed in vehicles to reduce theft of guns, not understanding or caring that this would make it far easier to spot vehicles that should be targeted for gun thefts. People not knowing or caring that making it harder to secure a gun in your car in a legally-approved manner would make it so difficult/expensive that many folks would stop carrying altogether.

      Or maybe they DO know these things and care about them…and that’s what is driving their response.

      That’s the problem, the “catch 22” that is caused by having vehement gun-controllers lurking around every corner, trying to use every law and tool and ruling to restrict gun ownership, to turn up the heat and slowly boil the frog. After gun owners see the results of this for a few decades, they stop supporting what might otherwise be seen as “reasonable” restrictions, because they know that any new restrictions will primarily be used as another club to beat legal gun owners with, not to generally reduce/fight crime. See: “Gun Safety” which has NOTHING to do with safety; it’s just smaller-step gun control and people control, using a less objectionable name that had fewer negatives and more appeal to the latest focus groups…

  1. With all the morons who still try to tell me how the KKK became the NRA because a cartoon in a Michael Moore movie told them so I doubt any amount of data, facts or figures will ever convince any of them that just maybe they might be not entirely 100% accurate with the 40% number.

  2. I would guess that both the statements in this article are related. That is IF people believe that 40% of guns are sold without a background check (even if that is not true) then they also support universal background checks and probably more restrictive gun laws. The challenge is to get the word out that the first statement is false so their opinions “might” be changed on the second part.

  3. I suspect that no one really knows the answer. But I suspect that the number of firearms bought w/o a background check is not that small. Here in MT, there is a pretty big gray market for guns. A couple years ago, I was trying to sell an ATV, and probably half the people calling me up offered to include firearms in the deal. They move around a lot, just like vehicles, trailers, chain saws, etc. Mostly, it is completely legal, though no one checks (unless they are an FFL). And this is part of what closing the alleged gun show loophole would supposedly outlaw – except that it wouldn’t. Add to that more and more people are opting to pay for guns that haven’t gone through an FFL, simply because they don’t trust the govt. Know one guy who recently paid a premium over retail for a very slightly used Sig. That sort of thing.

    • When I bought my first motorcycle in LA, way back in the 80s, the seller offered to throw in a full auto MAC-10 for an additional $300……. I just looked at the guy, obviously a recent arrival from Central America, and said “nope, can’t afford, have no use for…….” I can only imagine trying to explain away that one, and most likely it’s ballistic fingerprint, to Californistan cops after a routine stop for reckless riding….

    • You have fallen victim to sample bias; which we are all susceptible to. MT has such a minuscule part of the population that it is not representative of the nation.
      You need to account for the more urbanized and highly urbanized areas. And, you need to account for those States in more urbanized areas that require non-dealer transfers to be run thru FFLs.
      No doubt that the legal secondary market is significant; but it’s probably not as large as we might think it is based on our own participation in that market. The IL-legal secondary market is also significant; and these two to gather are probably fairly significant.
      The real question with UBC is how much leakage is there from legitimate non-dealers into the hands of criminals?

  4. That’s a lot of stolen guns. Seems like private owners should be held to a higher standard of security against theft.

    • Are you blaming the gun owners for their firearms being stolen? It’s my fault that someone entered my locked house/locked car and removed my property from it?

      I agree that some prudence is wise, and a safe recommended, but the only person responsible for a gun being stolen is the person that stole it.

      • Actually, I do blame the victims of gun theft to a certain degree. We are not talking about a double din stereo with nav that was stolen while your car was in the driveway at 2:00 AM.
        Just like here in Spokane recently, a cop went for a walk in a Park here and left his department issued AR15 covered with a jacket in the back seat of his truck and it was stolen. Vehicles are routinely broken into at trail-heads in this area and only a numbskull would leave a firearm in a car. The same goes for leaving guns in your car at night parked outside.

        If you take reasonable precautions to prevent theft, I’m OK with it. Leaving firearms so that all a person has to do is kick a door in or break a window and they have your gun(s) IMHO, is not a reasonable precaution.
        Would you leave $10,000 in cash in your glove compartment sitting outside? No? Why not?
        Why would someone leave a firearm then! People do it and I do blame them.
        People should have their firearms secured at least so that a stupid kid ripping stereos at night from cars or while you’re buying socks at Sears doesn’t gain easy access to them.
        I’m only advocating reasonable precautions and lots of people ignore reasonable!

        • Leaving your firearm (abandoning/unsecured) is the near universal answer to the “No Guns Here” sign.

          Correct answer is that no place open to the public can establish a free fire area (attempt to deprive a citizen of their 2nd Rights).

      • It depends on the quality of the locks. If you use cheap/flimsy locks or otherwise deficient security then, yes, you have to take some blame for a criminal getting a hold of your gun.

        If somebody steals your jewelry, that’s just your problem; it won’t result in some innocent person getting shot. If somebody steals your guns, that’s everybody’s problem.

        We would be very upset with our government if criminals were stealing large quantities of handguns from police or military armories. They aren’t, but it appears they are stealing large quantities of handguns from private owners. That requires an effective response, and ex ante rather than ex post.

        • “..If somebody steals your guns, that’s everybody’s problem.”

          I still bear no responsibility for the actions of the criminals.

          I work under the assumption that people who steal are criminals, why don’t you?

        • @ chip:

          This is a “negligent security” question — classic and well-established tort law. If a business has inadequate lighting in their parking lot, they can be liable for a crime that takes place there. The same principle applies to leaving your guns easy to steal.

          (Also, it does not alter the criminal liability of the perpetrator.)

        • @ Danny
          There’s a obvious trend for people not to accept responsibility for their own actions.
          That’s why everyone is sue-happy or assigning blame. Someones gun was stolen out of their car which was parked outside all night, so it’s the criminals fault there is a gun on the street. Well, yes it is, but since we are assigning blame and it many instances, just like insurance companies assign blame in certain percentages, for example, a loss of a limb or finger at a certain age can be mathematically calculated in loss dollars, we must then accept that leaving a firearm in such a manner as to create easy access by known trends and methods, is unreasonable and such practice bears some determinable degree of responsibility. To deny it is just being silly and unreasonable.

        • “If somebody steals your guns, that’s everybody’s problem.”

          So, you are a collectivist, then. Puts the rest of your comment in perspective as well.

      • The thief is 100% responsible for stealing the gun. But the owner is also 100% responsible for whatever degree of sloppy storage was employed.

        A soldier can be penalized for neglecting proper care of his weapon. Safe storage is part of proper care, especially when sloppy storage leaves it accessible to the enemy without a great deal of effort. And in our situation, a criminal willing to steal a gun is the enemy.

        That’s why defense of self and others legitimately comes under the Second Amendment, even though the FFs didn’t think of it in those terms: violent criminals are a threat to “the security of a free state”. We the militia (= we the people) are the first line of defense against that threat (the function of the police is to clean up after them). It is our duty, then, to store weapons in such a way that the enemy can’t just walk in and walk off with them.

      • I suggest that we suspend the search for any absolute answer; whether it might be that gun owners are absolutely responsible; or, have no responsibility whatsoever. Is there another interesting perspective?

        How about public perception of us, the PotG? Do we want to advertise that we just don’t give a damn whether criminals get hold of our guns by stealing them? Do we want to seem arrogant about our RIGHT to leave our guns where they are vulnerable to theft?

        Suppose, just for discussion, that we don’t actually change our behavior at all. Nevertheless, we assert that we are more concerned than anyone about losing our guns to theft. After all, we are just as vulnerable to those guns being used against us as everyone else; in addition, we have lost valuable property. It is in our own financial interest to protect our guns from theft; and, we endeavor to do so.

        Theft of guns is probably an acute concern relative to other property apart from cash and jewelry. Guns are small, portable and sale-able in the black market at prices comparable to retail. (You could steal a $1,000 stereo and fence it for $250. Or, a $500 gun and fence it for $475. Which is the more attractive property?)

        The better we do to make our homes resistant to burglary the less profitable that crime is. Comparing two identical homes, one with a $1,000 stereo and the other with a $500 gun, we do more to reduce the profitability of burglary by putting the gun in a safe than the fellow with the stereo. He has to armor-up his entire house; we just need to buy a safe.

        It’s worth-while thinking about how we could do better to protect our guns from theft.

    • Negative ghostrider. People should be held accountable for their own actions. Blame the thieves not the victims.

      • Leaving nothing but a car’s window glass between a Glock pistol and a thief constitutes “action” for which the owner should be “responsible.”

        • So are you willing to stand trial right next to the person who broke into your home or car and stole your gun and then killed someone with it? If not, why not?

        • If the perpetrator is sued in a civil trial, the negligent gun owner might be sued in the same civil trial. Or it might be a separate civil trial.

          At the criminal trial, the perpetrator would be the only defendant. The negligent gun owner might be called as a witness.

        • What if you only left your Glock behind that window glass because the law prevented you from carrying it into, say, a post office? Is the postal service also liable for any harm that the thief may cause with the pistol they stole (which wouldn’t have been accessible to the thief if not for the post office’s “no guns” policy)?

        • House Window? Shop Window? Holster on your hip?

          Breaking a window to take a gun requires criminal intent. It doesn’t just happen by itself. If I leave my Glock on a park bench, I see your point. But inside a closed car? Crazy! I’m sure the trial lawyer leeches will support you, though.

        • Let’s rephrase that: Leaving nothing but a mini-skirt as the only thing between a rapist and the object of his desire constitutes “action” for which the [skirt wearer] should be “responsible.”

        • We ought to make the point – obvious as it is – that GFZs force carriers to leave guns in cars where they are vulnerable to being stolen.

          Anybody who wants to steal a gun need only hang-out adjacent to a GFZ and watch patrons pause to “fuss” with something for a minute after parking but before getting out of the car. Once the driver is out of sight the thief knows he can break into that particular car with a high probability of finding a gun.

          If the public is really interested in keeping guns out of the hands of thieves they should be working with us to remove GFZs. Conversely, if they are really only interested in inconveniencing our carry, well then carry-on as is.

    • This is what is known as BLAMING THE VICTIM. Yes, by all means lets punish victims of gun theft for their misfortune. While we are at it, lets punish people who have their cars stolen, since cars are often used in crimes, or people who have their mobile phones and computers stolen, since these can also be used to commit crimes. And since stolen money can be used to buy stolen guns, lets punish victims of robbery for being negligent in not properly securing their cash . See where this is going now?

      PS

      What do you think the chances are that cops will be held to whatever standard of security you want to apply to gun storage for ordinary citizens. The illegal alien that killed Katie Steinle used a gun stolen from a Federal Agent. I haven’t heard anything about that agent being sanctioned or punished for poor firearm security and realistically, it isn’t going to happen.

      • Tort liability turns on foreseeability and likelihood of harm. The notion that a stolen necklace could be pawned, the cash used to buy a gun, the gun used to shoot a bystander is possible, but remote, so tort liability would not attach.
        The likelihood that a stolen gun will be used to cause harm is much stronger and more direct. Negligently securing that firearm could give rise to tort liability. Of course, if a gun owner takes reasonable care to secure a firearm but it is stolen anyway, there should not be liability.
        Governments generally limit their sovereign immunity so that they can be sued for this type of tort. See, e.g., the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

        • Soooo….what happens if the aloha snackbar crowd steals your car or truck and mows down people in a pedestrian mall in a city. Would you say the owner is liable? How about a drunk stealing your car and plowing into kids waiting for the school bus?

        • You present no factual basis for your claim that stolen valuables are not likely be pawned or fenced for money to buy crime guns. You also present no factual basis for your claim that stolen guns present a significantly greater likelihood of harm to innocent people then say stolen cars, which can be used in drive by shootings or for dangerous joyriding while DUI. All you have is some groundless speculation dressed up with nice Perry Mason legalese about tort liability. Nice try though.

        • “Tort liability turns on foreseeability and likelihood of harm”

          More like, “on political correctness and likelihood of a payday for the ambulance chasers and their enablers”

        • ” Of course, if a gun owner takes reasonable care to secure a firearm but it is stolen anyway, there should not be liability.”

          Of course, the gun-control groups will slowly boost the definition of “reasonable care” until it becomes unreasonable, as it’s far easier to expand an existing law than to pass a highly restrictive one to begin with. Of what exact use is placing a security vault in a car to prevent gun thefts, if ENTIRE CARS ARE REGULARLY STOLEN? It’s nothing more than window dressing, the latest baby steps, a few more small increments; slowly raise the temperature until the water around the frog starts to simmer, on the way to a full boil…

      • There’s a difference not just in degree but in kind between weapons and all other objects: as we the militia, we have a responsibility to provide for the security of our free state. That means not letting our instruments of defense be taken and turned to instruments of offense.

        Yes other things can be used as weapons, but that’s beside the point: guns and other weapons are specifically meant to be used to provide for the security of our free state. To let them fall into the wrong hands is negligence at best.

        Which reminds me: I need to get a lockbox bolted to the floor of my truck before my planned trip later this summer, as I will occasionally be required to be apart from my travel piece.

        • We are in a battle for the hearts, minds and votes of the voters with the Bloomberg and MSM empires fighting against us.

          In this battle, what are we doing:
          – arguing that we are doing the best we can to lock-up our guns to protect our own property?
          – deflecting the accusation that we are supplying the black market with principled arguments about individual responsibility?

          Which line of argument better serves our cause?

  5. It’s simple. Go to a state that has recently instituted UBC, like Colorado.

    Look at how many more transfers they have before vs after the law went into effect.

    • The 40% number falls apart rather quickly when we look at the statistics in Colorado.

      As HuffPo so kindly reported back in January 2014: of the 396,955 background checks done in Colorado in 2013, only 6,198 were for “private sale background checks.” This works out to about 1.6% (though it should be noted that the UBC law did not take effect until July 1, 2013).

      Furthermore, if we exclude gun show sales from that number, the total falls to 3,838 (Denver Post April 2014).

    • Just to add information. Many Colorado brick and mortar FFL’s will not perform person to person (P2P) background checks. Among the laws passed in 2013 was one that mandated a $10(?) fee that goes to the state for each BGC. In addition the state mandated that FFL’s could charge a separate fee of not more than $10 for their services in performing a P2P BGC. Both in resistance to the laws passed and it being a financial and time burden on the FFLs, many have chosen not to perform P2P BGCS.

      • It’s also to their benefit not to do person to person transfers. By making it extremely difficult your local gun dealer is now the only game in town. They get to sell more new guns, more trade-in guns, and more used guns obtained at a deep discount from owners who can’t legally transfer them in a private sale.

      • It occurs to me that we PotG ought to CONSIDER advising our FFLs to refuse to do transfers. Now, look at the impact

        – we will have to drive farther and pay higher fees to get UBCs from FFLs. This is a consequence of the State legislature’s UBC law. Thereupon, we can demand that the State require its law-enforcement offices to perform these BCs for free.

        – we can complain that access to NICS is a government monopoly; we can demand that the Feds open access to NICS more widely or even to all comers.

        – We can complain that we have a good excuse for non-compliance with the UBC law.

        By no means would such a strategy make the Antis roll-over and play dead nor attract a huge outpouring of sympathy from neutral voters. However, it might put another nail in the coffin of UBC.

  6. It never ceases to amaze me the number of paroled felons in my local community who are rearrested and in possession of stolen firearms. Some of hem are barely out of prison and they have guns. To suggest that UBCs (which California has had for handguns for decades) will eliminate this black market is insane. Someone ought to publish–if available–the number of felons who are arrested while in possession of an illegally obtained firearm. Trumpet that statistic as proving that UBCs will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that they will not even dent much less eliminate the black market in stolen guns.

    • Don’t forget to recognize that those felons cannot be lawfully required to perform a background check because it would incriminate them. I’m not sure we want that trumpeted; today’s bonehead nanny-state lovers would be likely to throw out that constitutional protection “Because guns!”

    • The cry “someone should publish” promises a great deal of efficacy in our arguments against gun-control.

      It would be a plain-spoken argument to demand data from ATF and FBI about the traces and investigations they perform. This data would show how little LEOs are doing to enforce the laws on the books and would suggest how little more new gun control laws would contribute.

      Pushing for data would serve to triangulate Congress-critters. There are those who would:
      – vote against gun-rights no matter what
      – vote for gun-rights no matter what
      – vote for or against depending upon whatever excuse would satisfy their constituents.

      It is this 3’rd group that we could influence. We can excoriate them for voting blindly for a gun-control law without first seeing the data. That’s a threat. They would be better off voting to fund compilation of the data first. They can tell their gun-control constituents that they couldn’t vote blindly for gun-control bills without first seeing the data.

      The first group will try to stop a compilation of the data. They know it will work against them.

      If we can get the second and third groups to form a united front to compile the data, the first group will have to back-off or risk being embarrassed.

  7. The hardware is not the problem it’s how we as a society fail to properly deal with offensive acts. Plea bargaining early parole and slaps on the wrist put these animals among us.

    • Plea bargaining leads to another evil: prosecutors know criminals are willing to bargain, so in order to get the sentence the prosecutor thinks the criminal deserves, charges are piled on that aren’t likely to stand up but can be bargained away. So we have the barbaric phenomenon of a single action bringing a half dozen criminal charges.

      One result is a growing number of innocent people taking plea bargains out of fear that one or more of those charges might make it through a jury (as an example, a leading newspaper did a study [remains unpublished, frat it] that determined that in Oregon, between one in five and one in four “convicted sex offenders” are actually innocent, but took a plea bargain in order to avoid the risk of being convicted for multiple felonies all at once). The book _Three Felonies a Day_ sets out how this has corrupted the system to the point that prosecutors will dig through the activities of someone they don’t like and can inevitably find something (especially in vague federal law) to prosecute for; they don’t even care if they win, because just the prosecution can destroy a career — and many of those thus unjustly prosecuted will take a plea bargain to avoid the destruction of their lives (and loss of property, etc.).

  8. Copy/paste from my comment on the Facebook post:

    Way too complicated. The only way the federal government will know a gun purchase took place is if the NICS check comes back as successful or if the buyer told a federal data collector and showed some sort of proof of purchase. If 40% of gun sales occurred without a background check, how would they know that the sale happened in the first place? I sure as hell don’t see thousands of people walking into the ATF’s various offices with receipts in their hands. No study debunking needed, just a little logic.

  9. Ironic. In 1999, after Columbine, Wayne LaPierre testified before Congress that he would support expanded background checks if the NICS system were not broken.

  10. Facts? Logic? Truth? Responsibility?
    Libtards know not these things. To speak of them to libtards is as useful as teaching your dog how to write an essay.

  11. As soon as a person understands the UBC thought, what it means, and why it isn’t what they believed it is, they typically loose interest. Many non-gun knowledgeable people believe gun sales are an unregulated free-for-all with gun shows like a wide west circus and average American citizens supplying any criminal who comes along. And why might they believe this? Because Bloomberg adverts sell it as fact. I know, I saw it during the Bloomberg attack on WA State to sell the I-594 BS. That’s how they got it passed. Lies on top of lies.

  12. Hmmmm…when I used to hang out at the gym I was somewhat of an evangelist for gun rights. And I had several big black men tell me their gun was stolen. But one was a young white guy who kept his Glock in a drawer. His 16year old kid had an unauthorized party when he was away and PRESTO!-Gone GLOCK Gone…my point is these several thefts could all be prevented-either by keeping your idiot mouth shut or having appropriate security. So yeah I agree with Mark Lloyd. It’s not a car,a phone, jewelry or a TV. It’s a gun. And there are NO (real) private sales in Illinois. You gotta’ run a freakin’ FOID through the State PO-leece. Security theatre…

    • So you’re willing to allow gun control activists, masquerading as “gun security experts”, to help set the anti-theft/security standards by which we will be allowed to posses firearms IN OUR OWN HOMES?

      You need to step back and think long and hard about that proposal, and how it could/would be abused, buddy. Gun controllers are NEVER satisfied; whatever we do is NEVER enough; and they could and would use a law like that to eventually force the end of gun ownership in America.

      • Gee I never said that BUDDY-all I said was watch your shite. DUH…My TV won’t kill you(but it might make you stupid).

      • What was that one suggestion someone made in a post to a different article – “lock them in a community vault”?

        THAT will keep the guns secure (won’t do much for personal defense though).

  13. There’s this report from 2001 on the sources of criminal’s guns.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

    The two largest sources, accounting for about 40% each, were illegal sources, and friends or family

    Table 8. Source of firearms possessed during the current offense of State prison inmates, 1997 and 1991

    Source of firearms Percent of State prison inmates who possessed a firearm during current offense
    1997 1991
    Purchased or traded
    from retail outlet 13.9% 20.8%
    Retail store 8.3% 14.7%
    Pawnshop 3.8% 4.2%
    Flea market 1.0% 1.3%
    Gun show 0.7% 0.6%

    Family or friend 39.6% 33.8%
    Purchased or traded 12.8% 13.5%
    Rented or borrowed 18.5% 10.1%
    Other 8.3% 10.2%

    Street/illegal source 39.2% 40.8%
    Theft or burglary 9.9% 10.5%
    Drug dealer/off street 20.8% 22.5%
    Fence/black market 8.4% 7.8%

    Other 7.4% 4.6%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *