Forums / Political & Legal / fact sheet.rough draft complete.....give it a read n let me know what yall think

1 year 16 weeks ago, 5:13 PM

jay sedler

jay sedler's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1525
Join Date:
Oct 2009
Location:
redding, california, United States

Intro
The following info has been taken using .gov sites for statistics,past studies, quotes by officials.Whenever possible, a video or speech is taken directly from a gov website, however some links for video or text (posted for verification) may be to private news channels etc.The intention of this collection of stats, studies, and quotes is to defeat without relying on emotion,the emotional and generally fact free opinion based arguments supporting the expansion of the classification and ban of "assault weapons" and "hi capacity magazines".The majority of statistics and quotes used have been retrieved from the same studies and statistics the assault weapons ban proponents use.Proponents of the ban of so called assault weapons usually quote only a tiny portion of a paragraph that quite often speaks directly against their claims.multiple instances of what would seem to be deliberate misinformation,or the willful misuse of facts or findings are cited below,throughout this collection.The rate that "assault weapons are used in crime is quite low,many studies have ben done showing an absolute maximum of 8% even before the 1994 ban as stated by studies before the ban.One of the studies often cited by "assault weapons" ban advocates says:

Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96. published mar 1999
"studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used."
Assault weapons
What an assault weapon is, can itself be a debate even between gun ban opponents.
The word ASSAULT and WEAPON are defined by Mirriam webster as:
a : a violent physical or verbal attack
b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)

Definition of WEAPON

1
: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2
: a means of contending against another
See weapon defined for English-language learners »
See weapon defined for kids »
Examples of WEAPON

assault with a deadly weapon
The term "assault weapon" has evolved from military terms for military equipment,never intending civilian semi automatic weapons to be labeled this way.
Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 from November 1970,
Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries
written by Harold E. Johnson. "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."
The paragraph concludes with: "Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."pg 67)

The above was prepared for the U.S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center.This particular paragraph focuses specifically on the AK-47, but the quote "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons" is found at the top of the page under "68.General".These quotes clearly illustrate that to have been classified as an "assault weapon", specifically an "assault rifle" the gun in question would have to have the ability to select fire,meaning to have the ability to fire automatically.Automatic or select fire weapons are a highly controlled commodity in the U.S. since the ban of their import/export,sale,transfer,manufacture,in 1934.Only the A.T.F. can approve such a sale, manufacture, or purchase of such an item.Commonly called N.F.A items after the National Firearms Act of 1939 this includes sound suppressors or silencers as well as all true military weaponry .It is on this basis that it can be argued that "assault weapons" have been banned for over 70 years.

"assault weapons" features and their
The "assault" features are almost all simply cosmetic modifications,ergonomic enhancements, or a kind of safety device.Below is a list of features and their

Pistol grip or thumbhole stock
is an ergonomic feature allowing the user to keep a straighter wrist while operating, similar to an ergonomic computer keyboard.

Folding/telescoping stock
is an ergonomic feature used for adjusting the rifle to the correct size of a particular shooters body,or clothing,similar to an automobile seat sliding forward and back to accommidate users of different body structures,also used for storage & transportation.

Forward pistol grip or second handgrip
is an ergonomic feature allowing the user to achieve greater control of the gun, as well as straightening the wrist for comfort.Persons with disabilities, or small body types can safely and effectively operate a larger firearm by adding this device.

Threaded barrel
allows the attachment of LEGAL non "assault" devices such as an adapter to facilitate the use of blanks (bullet less practice ammunition),a muzzle break, a Recoil reducing safety device of sorts,as it can drastically reduce the chances of, and reduce the force applied to the operators face upon contacting part of the gun (usually a scope) during recoil.This feature also allows for proper maintenance as well as offering protection for the crown of the barrel, a critical part of any firearm .A threaded barrel is the best way of affixing legal muzzle devices due to its ability to accept different legal devices easily without changing the look,feel, or function of the gun.

Flash supressor
is a safety device reducing the temporary blindness and confusion/loss of balance due to firing a gun in a low light situation such as a home invasion late at night, especially when more than one shot is needed .A flash suppressor does not hide a shooters position.

Grenade launcher
a cosmetic feature due to the A.T.F's federal control over any ammunition that said launcher would fire,as well as the extreme scarceness of this type of ammunition even amongst properly licensed entities,due to these launchers being quite obsolete.

Flare launcher
a safety device,or cosmetic when not in immediate use.These launchers do NOT fire 40mm military rounds.Only signal flares and colored smoke are available to the public.To create or purchase anti personnel devices (lethal or less lethal rounds) for a flare launcher constitutes a felony without the permission of the A.T.F. at present.It is important to note,these launchers are commercially available to be used separately ,or in conjunction with a firearm,legally,and is not itself a firearm.

Barrel shroud
a safety device used to reduce the chances of a burn of the operator or bystanders who may contact the gun,as the opposition is already aware based on the wording of the proposed ban and previous bills such as SENATE BILL 23
"A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel."

The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip
is an ergonomic feature, allowing for a smaller diameter grip,increasing control, but sacrificing conceal ability,streamlined shape,and generally increasing in size with the length of the barrel remaining constant.

bayonet lug
a cosmetic feature,when not in use.This feature IS a military feature,but has been used in the past for attaching other legal devices such as a flashlight or a bipod, but is generally ignored by the user.This feature has no effect on the round capacity,rate of fire,or the lethality of projectiles as it is the same working gun when used to mount a bayonet with nothing else changing whatsoever.
There are no available stats or data on the use of a rifle, pistol, or shotgun with a mounted bayonet being used in crime.

Regarding barrel threads,it has been argued that this feature can be used to attach sound suppressors or "silencers",and although this is true, it is presently a felony to create,possess or purchase this type of device without prior authorization even for a non firearm use, such as would be used for a paintball or pellet gun, as described below by the A.T.F website.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#pain...
" Because silencers are NFA weapons, an individual wishing to manufacture or transfer such a silencer must receive prior approval from ATF and pay the required tax. See also “What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA firearms?” and“How does an individual obtain authorization to make an NFA firearm?”
If you have any further questions as to the classification of a paintball or airgun silencer, please send a written request to ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch.
[18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a), 27 CFR 479.11]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#gern...
"Q: Are grenade and rocket launcher attachments destructive devices?
Grenade and rocket launcher attachments for use on military type rifles generally do not come within the definition of destructive devices. However, the grenades and rockets used in these devices are generally within the definition.

[26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11]"

President Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_fu...
NOW IS THE TIME The president's plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence.
(quoted sections below are cut and pasted from the above mentioned .gov site)
"Most gun owners buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting. Yet too often, irresponsible and dangerous individuals have been able to easily get their hands on firearms. We must strengthen our efforts to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands." (pg3)
"The single most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence and mass shootings, like the one in Newtown, is to make sure those who would commit acts of violence cannot get access to guns."The plan goes on to talk about the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, saying "It is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot. However, too many guns are still sold without a background check and too many individuals prohibited from having a gun slip through the cracks."(pg3)
Unfortunately as pointed out by US SEN Graham in one senate judiciary committee meeting nearly none of the failed background checks are prosecuted.Below is a video link posted by senator graham discussing the rarity of prosecution for failing a background check.
He (Graham) has previously noted:
• 76,142 individuals failed a gun purchase background check in 2010.
• 19 percent of the denials (13,862) were based on the applicant being a fugitive from justice.
• Another 2.5 percent (1,923) involved felons and unlawful firearms possession.
• But there were only 13 of the 76,142 failed background checks resulted in guilty pleas.
the video of the above mentioned hearing is viewable on youtube posted byUSSenLindseyGraham at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhkAYGJAGOA
Regardless of the number that could have been convicted if prosecuted,the bigger question seems to be why were the offenders not apprehended reported to parole/probation or mental health instantly? If the presidents claim is correct and we are presently"able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot."There is no logical reason to not apprehend suspects of failed background checks "on the spot".Certain politicians have become so focused on banning guns used in a small amount of crimes instead of focusing on the arrest and conviction of the known failed purchases such as the Newtown shooter.Looking further into the presidents plan the true focus seems to to be on removing types of guns based on what the plan paradoxically refers to as "cosmetic modifications" as well as limiting magazines to 10 rd capacity saying:

"A 2010 survey by the Police Executive Research Forum found that more than one-third of police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons expired in 2004. To protect law enforcement and enhance public safety, we must redouble our efforts to:
• Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons: The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: The case for prohibiting high-capacity magazines has been proven over and over; the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which would have been prohibited under the 1994 law. These magazines enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence, yet they are once again legal and now come standard with many handguns and rifles. Congress needs to reinstate the prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds."(pg5)
The presidents plan points out that "high capacity" magazines allow or "enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence, yet they are once again legal and now come standard with many handguns and rifles." However a 10 round magazine can also easily be used to do ''mass violence" if Americans agree can agree that 10 victims is enough to constitute "mass violence".
The above mentioned 2010 survey is also misleadingly used by senator Feinstein.When stated as "more than one-third of police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons expired in 2004."as in The presidents plan, it leads you to believe there is a 1/3 increase in the overall criminal use over other types of guns since the ban ended.Below is a section cut and pasted from that study that shows a significantly higher increase in reports of the use of handguns over "assault weapons",and "hi capacity magazines."
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=40...
CRITICAL ISSUES IN POLICING SERIES
Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground
By Focusing on the Local Impact May 2010
" Thirty-seven. percent. of. the. police. agencies. responding. to. PERF’s. survey. reported that they.have.seen.noticeable.increases.in. criminals’.use.of.assault.weapons.
However,. an. even. larger. number. of. agen- cies—53. percent—reported. seeing. increases. in. large-caliber.handguns,.such.as..40.caliber.weapons.
And. 38. percent. of. the. police. departments. re- ported. noticeable. increases. in. criminals’. use. of. semiautomatic. weapons. with. high-capacity. magazines" (pg2)

Mathematically speaking this study shows a greater need to ban non "assault type" handguns than "assault weapons" or "hi capacity" magazines clips strips or drums."strengthening the ban on assault weapons"as the president's plan outlines would mean further defining and expanding the features of which constitute an "assault weapon" thereby instantly increasing the number of "assault weapons" on the street,some of those will undoubtedly be used in crime.By simply re-defining "assault weapons" features test and adding new specific makes/models to the list there will statistically be that many more "assault weapons" to be considered a problem,and more to be hypothetically used in crime,perpetuating what will be perceived to be a growing threat.Below are some excerpts from some of the many government studies that speak to the fact that reducing magazine capacity does not ensure a lower violent crime level,and does not achieve lower death rates, or wounds to victims.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt
Impacts of The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96
by Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper
"A central argument for special regulation of assault weapons and large
capacity magazines is that they facilitate the rapid firing of high numbers
of shots, which allows offenders to inflict more wounds on more persons
in a short period of time, thereby increasing the expected number of
injuries and deaths per criminal use. The study examined trends in the
following consequences of gun use: gun murders, victims per gun
homicide incident, wounds per gunshot victim, and, to a lesser extent, gun murders of police."
"--The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."
"the banned guns are used in only a small fraction of gun crimes; even before
the ban, most of them rarely turned up in law enforcement agencies'
requests to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to trace
the sales histories of guns recovered in criminal investigations."
"Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the
maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on
outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to
detect statistically"
"found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun
murder victims with multiple
wounds."
Taking that study together with another in 2004 as a follow up it is clear the 1994 ban was not successful in reducing death or injury by so called hi capacity magazines or assault weapons
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
Christopher S. Koper
July 2004
98-IJ-CX-0039
"Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence."(pg2)

The above mentioned study and quote "nations recent drop in gun violence" highlights a falling trend in gun violence when viewed over all, even AFTER the expiration of the "assault weapons ban",and the proliferation of certain so called "assault weapons" to the point of being known as Americas favorite rifle,or top selling rifle.one study says:

"In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s"

"Between 1999 and 2008, the number of homicides remained relatively constant, ranging from a low of 15,552 homicides in 1999 to a high of 17,030 homicides in 2006. These homicide numbers were still below those reported in the 1970s" FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 1950-2010.
this report goes on to say
"The recent overall decline in murders of law enforcement officers
may be attributed to the decline in law enforcement officers
killed by a handgun (figure 35)."
Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008
Alexia Cooper and Erica L. Smith, BJS Statisticians
see figures 1&2 for graphs by number of victims or per 100,000 population.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27
These figures can be further substantiated by viewing C.D.C. statistics,or F.B.I crime reports and supplemental graphs and tables online.

Finally the presidents plan states "There are approximately 30,000 firearm-related homicides and suicides a year, a number large enough to make clear this is a public health crisis."(pg8)
the C.D.C's statistics appear to disagree considerably with the presidents figures as seen below.The C.D.C stats hold all gun related deaths including justifiable homicide lower than those of motor vehicle traffic deaths or unintentional poisoning.Unintentional falls are responsible for over 2X more deaths than homicide committed with any type of gun,this seems inconsistent with the presidents claim of a "public health crisis."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 26,009
Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 33,041
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
of the 31,672 firearm deaths only 11,078 were homicides including justifiable homicide by private citizen or police,nearly twice as many, 19,392 were suicides.It is logical to conclude that suicide rates will not change based on the features or magazine capacity of the firearms available since the firearm used is always an instrument of self destruction rather than an assault none of the features could possibly increase the lethality or number of victims.A 10rd magazine capacity will have no effect on reducing suicidal inclination or reducing the amount of gunshot wounds sustained by the suicidal person,unless the average suicide tends to require more than 10 rounds.

By using the above info from the C.D.C. approximately 11,000 gun murders occur each year for a ratio by population of 3.6 per 100,000. Of the 11,087 firearm related homicides reported by C.D.C. between 1-8% will be related to assault weapons based on government estimates.
One percent of 11,078 is 110.78 possible assault weapons related fatalities with eight percent at 886.24 assault weapon related deaths.Using the higher 8% figure,8% of the 3.6 per 100,000 firearm homicides would be .288 per 100,000,with 1% at a minute .036 per 100,000 or .36 per 1,000,000,with 8% still being only 2.88 per million.
According to at least one government page, the odds of being struck by lightning in our lifespan can be higher than the odds of being killed by an assault weapon in a given year.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm
ODDS OF BECOMING A LIGHTNING VICTIM
(based on averages for 2001-2010)
Estimated U.S. population as of 2011
310,000,000
Annual Number of Deaths Reported
39
Number of Injuries Reported
241
280
Estimated number of U.S. Deaths
40
Estimated number of actual Injuries
360
400
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (reported deaths + injuries)
1/1,000,000
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (estimated total deaths + injuries)
1/775,000
Odds of being struck in your lifetime (Est. 80 years)
1/10,000
Odds you will be affected by someone being struck (Ten people affected for every one struck)
1/1000

Vice President Biden

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/24/watch-fireside-hangout-vice-pr...
username whitehouse video link @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYlkknrku4

The following are Quotes taken from the above link/links from a January 24, 2013. Q&A online session named "fireside hangout" where vice president Joe Biden answered a series of questions from different people via webcam,with multiple points of view,and a diverse set of questions on gun control.Within the above video link/links are .gov links or from youtube, uploaded by user name whitehouse,a U.S. government run youtube channel,showing vice president Joe Biden speaking directly about the rarity of "assault weapons' being involved in gun deaths in america, and at 29:44 even holds up his pitching fingers while saying so, making a "very small"gesture.When asked about enforcement of our current laws (such as prosecuting failed background checks) he said:"we are attempting to fully enforce the current
criminal laws"@8:54.There is a leap in logic to arrive at the conclusion that while laws we presently have are usually disobeyed by criminals,and often neglected by the prosecution at the same time,that the answer to any of America's gun violence problems, is more laws aimed at round capacity and "non sporting features"sometimes called "cosmetic" features by both pro and anti "assault weapons" ban advocates including senator Feinstein and president Obama.It is not unreasonable to expect that further legislation will be proportionately disobeyed based on the current rate of multiple violent criminals,and the rarity of prosecution for failed background checks as well as the rare use of "assault weapons" at the present.According to the vice
president's comments,it would seem that the more rare a particular type of gun is used in crime,the less "utility" they have.On the subject of the rarity with witch "assault weapons" are used in crime Biden had this to say:"it is true that the vast majority of gun deaths in america are not a consequence of the use of an assault weapon,but that begs the issue of whether or not assault weapons have any real utility"4:15. The vice presidents statement seems
to say that if a particular type of gun or other object is used rarely enough by criminals there is no utilitarian use for it and it could or should therefore be banned,even if there is substantial opposition on a constitutional,defense,hunting or other sporting basis.Vice president Biden claims: "police organizations overwhelmingly support it (assault weapons ban) because they get out gunned"4:56. F.B.I crime reports incline toward the opposite of Biden's claims,as well as at least one government report, saying:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
" From 1980 to 2010, the number of reported law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty dropped by 46%, from a reported 104 law enforcement officers killed in 1980 to 56 reported law enforcement deaths in 2010." See figures 34 and 35 for FIGURE 34 Law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, 1980–2010 and FIGURE 35 Law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty by weapon type, 1980–2010
Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008

Annual Rates for 2009 and 2010
Alexia Cooper and Erica L. Smith, BJS Statisticians
(also see figures 1&2 on homicide rates 1950-2010)

Overview these graphs show both a decline in the number of law enforcement officers killed from 1980-2010 (14 years prior 1994 A.W.B to 6 years after the ban ended) as well as an obvious inclination toward handguns not named as "assault weapons".So called assault weapons must account for some law enforcement officers deaths.However whatever number that is is widely held by government studies to be quite low generally 2%, but no higher than 8% according to some studies,and even that number may be skewed according to a study (below) often quoted by "assault weapons" ban PROPONENTS rather than OPPONENTS.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt
Title: Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.
Series:
Research in Brief
Author(s): Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper
Published: National Institute of Justice, March 1999
"tracing data are a biased sample of guns recovered by police. Prior studies suggest that assault weapons are more likely to be submitted for tracing than are other confiscated firearms.[14]" "found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons
and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds."
The above clearly shows that any number of "assault weapons"quoted as being used in crime based on the (B.A.T.F) is potentially much higher than the true number of "assault weapons" used in crime as well as speaking to the fact that the 1994 ban did not reduce the deaths or injuries in crimes thought to be related to "assault weapons" such as the murder of police etc.
below is more evidence supporting the
claim that 8% of crime involves assault weapons may be a disproportionate representation of the assault weapons actually used in crime.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
Guns used in crime
By Marianne W. Zawitz BJS Statistician

"In 1993 prior to the passage of the assault weapons ban, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), reported that about 1%
of the estimated 200 million guns
in circulation were assault weapons. Of the gun-tracing requests received that year by ATF from law enforce- ment agencies, 8% involved assault weapons."

"Assault weapons and offenders
In the 1991 BJS Survey of State Inmates, about 8% of the inmates reported that they had owned a military-type weapon, such as an Uzi, AK-47, AR-15, or M-16. Less than 1% said that they carried such a weapon when they committed the incident for which they were incarcer- ated. A Virginia inmate survey con- ducted between November 1992 and May 1993 found similar results: About 10% of the adult inmates re- ported that they had ever possessed an assault rifle, but none had carried it at the scene of a crime."

The claim that police are being outgunned is both vague in the meaning of the term "outgunned" as well as being fear inciting in its implication that by not enacting new legislation on "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines we as a nation are allowing police to be shot down.The fact that police homicide fatalities have dropped with gun violence overall in america should be considered,as well as police
force's superior budget,superior equipment such as body armor or weapons,superior training,and team coordination.Most government information available tends to speak to the exact opposite of Biden's claim.
The following are excerpts from government studies on police use of force,police murder stats,weapon types used in assaults and murder of police etc.
according to one F.B.I law enforcement bulletin jan 2010:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/... Police Investigations of the Use of Deadly Force Can Influence Perceptions and Outcomes

By Shannon Bohrer, M.B.A., and Robert Chaney

found under "PERCEPTIONS OF DEADLY FORCE"

"Investigating officer-involved shootings constitutes a critical function, but, for most departments, it does not occur that frequently."

The following is a study from 1991/1996 supporting the comment (above).A separate government study previously cited available @
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf is one of multiple studies or reports that shows homicide peaking around 1991 see figures 1&2.Based on the peak in homicide particularly, and violent crime in general during that period it is reasonable to assess that police use of
force would be heightened at that time,with a proportionate amount of incidents necessitating discharge of weapon.One government page defines use of force as :
"amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject"
http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/we...

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndcopuof.pdf
National Data
Collection on
Police
Use of Force
Jointly published with the National Institute of Justice
Tom McEwen
Institute for Law and Justice Alexandria, Virginia
April 1996, NCJ-160113

(pg34)
Reported incidents of police use of force per 1,000 sworn officers during 1991 in city departments
Type of force
Rate per 1,000
sworn officers

Handcuff/leg restraint 490.4
Bodily force (arm, foot, or leg) 272.2
Come-alongs 226.8
Unholstering weapon 129.9
Swarm 126.7
Twist locks/wrist locks 80.9
Firm grip 57.7
Chemical agents (Mace or Cap-Stun) 36.2
Batons 36.0
Flashlights 21.7
Dog attacks or bites 6.5
Electrical devices (TASER) 5.4
Civilians shot at but not hit 3.0
Other impact devices 2.4
Neck restraints/unconsciousness-rendering holds1.4
Vehicle rammings 1.0
Civilians shot and killed 0.9
Civilians shot and wounded but not killed 0.2
Exhibit 2
The above clearly shows a total of only
4.1 officers total per 1,000 would have been in a situation to need to fire a weapon.The majority of force used by police is handcuff or leg restraints, with bodily force (arm leg or foot) being second highest use of force at 272.2 per 1,000.Simply unholstering a weapon was the fourth highest use of force and the most frequent use of force involving a firearm in this study.Unholstering a weapon was used over 31 times more often than firing a weapon at a suspect whether suspect was killed, wounded,or unwounded.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-feloniously-kil...
Weapons
Of officers killed in 2011, most (63) were killed with firearms. Of these, 50 were killedwith handguns. (A breakdown of the types of weapons used in these slayings is provided in Table 27.)
5 officers had their weapons stolen.
3 officers were killed with their own weapons.
10 officers attempted to use their weapons; 17 officers fired their weapons.
21 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders.
More information about this topic is provided in Tables 12, 13, 14, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,33, 34, 35, 36, 39, and 41.

Above is a set of statistics published by the F.B.I showing 60 officers were killed in 2011 with firearms other than their own.Of the 60 officers killed by guns other than their own studies show no more than a 1- 8% instance of assault weapons used in crime as a whole.1% of 60 is .6 officers annually nation wide, with 8% at 4.8 officers annually nation wide or if rates were equal state to state,each state would lose approximately 0.012 - 0.096 officers annually due to assault weapons at our current rate.based on the number of officers remaining constant the use of assault weapons would have to increase to 17% to rise above 10 officers killed annually by assault weapons in the U.S.

Below is another F.B.I 2011 study on the assault of police officers.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-assaulted-1/off...
Overview
In 2011, the FBI collected assault data from 11,944 law enforcement agencies that employed 535,651 officers. These officers provided service to more than 251 million persons, or 80.6 percent of the nation’s population.
The rate of officer assaults in 2011 was 10.2 per 100 sworn officers.
More information about these topics is provided in Tables 65, 66, 70, and 71.

Injuries

26.6 percent of the officers assaulted sustained injuries.
28.5 percent of the officers who were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet) suffered injuries.
15.7 percent of the officers who were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments were injured.
9.4 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured.
22.3 percent of officers who were attacked with other dangerous weapons were injured.
More information about this topic is provided in Tables 65, 66,
and 70.
Weapons
In 2011, 79.9 percent of officers who were assaulted in the line of duty were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet).
14.3 percent of the officers were assaulted with other dangerous weapons.
4.0 percent of the officers were assaulted with firearms.
The above
shows only 26 % of all officers assaulted sustained injuries.Only 9.4 percent of officers assaulted with firearms were injured.Of the 9.4 percent of officers injured, between 1-8% could be from "assault weapons" according to government studies,with the
possibility of "assault weapons" being unfairly represented overlooked, that is a total estimate of between .094% - .752% not even accounting for 1% of officers assaulted by firearms being injured according to these statistics.Understanding that the 1-8% estimate of assault weapons in crime is possibly based on averages if .094 or 1% of the 9.4 percent of officers injured in an assault with a firearm is multiplied times 10, the total is only .94% ."Assault weapons" oddly not even reaching 1% of officers assaulted by firearms according to these figures.
one study shows half as many police as are killed with a firearm die as a result of automobile accident.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statis...
FBI Releases 2011 Statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted
Washington, D.C.
November 19, 2012

FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
"Accidental Deaths
Fifty-three officers were killed accidentally while performing their duties in 2011. The majority (30 officers) were killed in automobile accidents."

Not considering multiple other sources backing it up within F.B.I crime reports and other studies cited in this collection etc, the above information seems to strike down the vice presidents claim of police being "outgunned" at all,let alone being "outgunned" due to the lack of law banning assault weapons or high capacity magazines.

The vice presidents insistence on the public's adoption of his self defense weapon of choice (double barreled shotgun) and his personal views on the safe handling,and responsible discharge of the weapon.With regard to firing "blasts in the air" (as the vice president worded it during a Q&A session) to defend from a home invasion show a
lack of regard to people living in a city where such a thing would probably constitute a felony and subsequent loss of gun rights as well as the obvious disregard for safety in such an action, it
is clear the vice president is not well versed enough in either.
A. the safe handling of firearms. B.The local laws governing the actions of,a gun user or to speculate on the "need" or actions that should be taken by the public where personal or home defense is concerned.
uploaded to youtube by username ABCNews viewable @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_LEfNFMAys
also available for view by googling ( joe biden fire two blasts)
"if you want to protect yourself get a double barreled
shotgun"
"jill if there is ever a problem just walk out on the balcony here or put that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house"
"you don't need an AR15"
"you don't need thirty rounds to protect
yourself"

Senator Feinstein
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Senator Feinstein's page claims a series of studies proves the 1994 "assault weapons" ban was successful.Below are claims and false or misleading information from the senators page,as well as quotes and links to the contrary.
One of the senators claims is:
"In a Department of Justice study (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with
multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997)."
The senators page neglected to post the whole quote from this study that reads: "Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban."Found via link from the senators page @ http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf
the quote“Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.” is found in the study,but does not in any way negate the studies findings that:
"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more
than a modest fraction of all gun murders. "
"We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim. We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced
by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests."
link provided by senator Feinstein's page http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf

"The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."
Impacts of The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban:
1994-96 by Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt

below are some of the findings of another newer study on the effects of the 1994 ban.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
Updated Assessment of the
Federal Assault
Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
Christopher S. Koper
July 2004
98-IJ-CX-0039
"AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2%according to most studies and no more than 8%"(pg2)

"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."(pg3)

senator Feinstin's page also claims:
"a University of Pennsylvania study (pdf), Christopher Koper reports that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault
Weapons Ban took effect.Original source (page 46): Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003,” (June 2004)."
The 2004 report by Koper also found that : "Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly
credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence."(pg2) LCM= large capacity magazine.
This study once again draws attention to the fact that gun violence as a
whole is decreasing to levels seen three decades ago.One study says:
" rate rose again in the late 1980s and early 1990s to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000. "
"The homicide rate declined sharply from 9.3 homicides per
100,000 in 1992 to 4.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2010." see figures 1&2.(pg2)
Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008

Annual Rates for 2009 and 2010
Alexia Cooper
and Erica L. Smith, BJS Statisticians http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

this study in addition to FBI universal crime reports and CDC statistics show proof of an already declining gun violence trend starting BEFORE the last "assault weapons" ban,and continuing well after the end of that ban.The above quote "assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault
Weapons Ban took effect" as cited by Feinstein's web page is once again misleading information,since gun violence was falling already.Studies show assault weapons are only used in 1-8% of crimes.It is deceptive to claim the drop in assault weapon use was the result of the ban,and not a drastic decline in gun violence over all, with the use of "assault weapons" remaining at a modest or "small fraction"1-8% of the crimes.

the senator's page also claims:
"A report by the Police Executive Research Forum finds that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
Original source (page 2): Police Executive Research Forum, "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact," (May 2010). "
As previously noted, this figure is intentionally being used by senator Feinstein and president Obama to give the illusion that assault weapons are being used more often than
other guns since the expiration of the ban.The study quoted actually found that more agencies involved in this study reported higher criminal use of handguns than "assault" or "hi-capacity" weapons.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=40...
CRITICAL
ISSUES IN POLICING SERIES
Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground
By Focusing on the Local Impact
May 2010

" Thirty-seven. percent. of. the. police. agencies. responding. to. PERF’s. survey. reported that they.have.seen.noticeable.increases.in. criminals’.use.of.assault.weapons.
However,. an. even. larger. number. of. agen- cies—53. percent—reported. seeing. increases. in. large-caliber.handguns,.such.as..40.caliber.weapons.
And. 38. percent. of. the. police. departments. re- ported. noticeable. increases. in. criminals’. use. of. semiautomatic. weapons. with. high-capacity. magazines" (pg2)

These figures show a 20-21% higher report of criminal use of "large caliber" handguns than "assault weapons" or guns using "high capacity" or "large capacity" magazines.There is no mention of this fact on the president's or senator Feinstein's page.
The following are video links from senator Feinstein's page, as well as some of her more pertinent quotes.Judging by the senators rhetoric it would seem she recognizes an individuals right to keep an "assault weapon" but feels it has become a public safety hazard and therefore is overridden by the publics right to life and safety.In each of the four following links the senator speaks passionately about the publics right to safety outweighing an individuals right to "assault weapons",only once implying that it is not a right but a perceived right.Senator Feinstein's call to elect officials to keep america from turning into "an armed camp" at the hands of the NRA and individual gun owners is not consistent with her claim "i'm not gong to demonize anyone".Senator Feinstein's choice of words as well as her repetitious claims that these types of guns are not needed for defense or hunting but designed for killing people in close combat gives the impression that she believes that owners of assault weapons are unqualified to own or use them,or worse they may be planning a mass shooting because that is the only purpose a gun of this type has,in her opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwnNUHcVu2Q
Press conference, Dec. 21, 2012
1:45 "the weapons today are much more powerful and lethal than the weapons were when we did this bill in 1993"
1:58 "i'm not gong to demonize anyone"
3:22 "we need to elect people who understand that america cannot be turned into an armed camp,where the safety of our citizens is jeopardized by the rights of a few who don't want anything to curtail their gun rights"
4:00 "either your going to let the NRA take over and dictate to this country or your going to enable your elected representatives to vote their conscience, based on their experience,based on their sense of right"

Realistically the' assault weapons" today are not "much more powerful and lethal" as Feinstein claims,in fact most of them are simply newer models or sporting models of the same guns banned in 1994 with AR and AK variants (designed in 1940s and 50s) being the main focus.The proposed ban list is available @ http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-sum...

CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Nov. 17, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBBjIGiBaMI
1:40 "........i don't believe the 2nd amendment covers them"
4:38 "the rights of the many to remain safe are more important than any right you may think you have to own a military style assault weapon"

PBS NewsHour with Gwen Ifill, Nov. 17, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DPJYA8et4
6:06 "our children have a basic right to go to a school and feel safe,and these guns because they kill large numbers of people very quickly,they ar'nt used for hunting""you don't need them for defense"

The argument that the public's right to safety overrules the 2nd amendment "rights of the few" as the senator worded it makes a huge jump in rationality. The fact that something dangerous exists does not automatically put an individual in danger.Automobile accidents kill more people each year than all gun deaths combined including accidental death, homicide, suicide, and justifiable homicide(self defense) and we as a nation allow children to operate these multiple thousand pound projectiles.The mere existence of "assault weapons" themselves poses no more a threat than the existence of automobiles,yet no one ever claims that they (automobiles) should be banned in the interest of preserving the right of the public to be safe,nor would their proposal be taken seriously.By the senators logic "assault weapons" are designed for military and police use, they have a higher potential for injury or death and are therefore not needed by the public.By the same logic muscle cars,european sports cars etc. could be banned because their original design and purpose was for the race track and there is no need for the public to possess such a potentially harmful vehicle on the streets.The argument that public safety over rides the 2nd amendment rights of the few is not only flawed in its logic but in its constitutionality as well according to the 9th amendment.
AMENDMENT [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This amendment means simply that one individual's rights cannot trump the rights of another.The 9th amendment voids the senators claims that the interest of public safety is a reason to INFRINGE upon the 2nd amendment rights of the people.

NBC’s Meet the Press with David Gregory, Nov. 16, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCa5FQNtal4
12:50 "Is this the way we want america to go?in other words the rights of the few overcome the safety of the majority?i don't think so"
quoting rupert Murdoch on twitter
14:12 "terrible news today when will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?"

Senator Feinstein smiled and allowed the above mentioned incorrect information posted by Mr Murdoch to pass without mention that the 1934 national firearms act had already banned automatic weapons,and was re strengthened in 1968.Failing to mention the fact that automatics have been banned for almost 80 years is either
A. A deliberate move to cultivate the misinformation and fear that fuel her political motives.
B. A clue that she does not know enough about the mechanical function of firearms or the present firearm laws to legislate further on the subject.

California as a model for an
"assault weapons" ban

California is a good model for the effectiveness of an assault weapons ban Because California has been under the most stringent gun ban in the nation for almost 20 years.Senator Feinstein authored the federal assault weapons ban of 1994,as well as the stronger still active ban in her home state of California.Below are stats taken from FBI crime reports and other .gov web pages further supporting previous studies findings that a ban on "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines does not ensure a lower homicide or violent crime rate.California leads the nation in Violent crime.In 2011 California had a far higher number of violent crimes than any other state, 154,944, that is more than the 149,933 New York,New Jersy and pennsylvania had combined that year.
California's violent crime accounted for over 75% of all violent crime in the 5 states that make up the pacific region. California had over 50,000, or nearly 50% more violent crimes than texas, california's closest competitor.There were 1,792 Murder and non negligent manslaughters in California in 2011 once again beating the state's nearest competitor Texas's 1,126. California had at least 2x more murder/manslaughters than all states excluding texas and florida in 2011.California had a 4x higher number of murders than all but 8 states,with a higher rate per 100,000 than over half the states.California had more officers feloniously killed than any other state.Between 2002 and 2011 california lost the most of any state, 47 officers ( 3 or more per year) that is more than the 41 officers in the mountain region consisting of 8 states,and more than the 30 officers killed in the west north central area that consists of 7 states.California lost at least 2X more officers during the 2002-2011 time period than all but 4 states,and 4X more than all but 18 states.
Studies before the "assault weapons" ban in 1994 showed between 1-8% of guns used in crime were assault weapons depending on the definitions used.California has a much stricter definition than the federal ban did.After almost two decades of "assault weapons" ban in California between 1-8 percent of the weapons used in crime appear to be of this type.In 2009 california processed 8 "assault weapons" as defined by California law for a total of 5.4%.California's stricter regulations and classifications may be partially responsible for this number being as high as it is.Any semi auto with a detachable magazine and any one non sporting feature constitute an assault weapon in California, not two as in federal legislation from 1994.This difference although seemingly small can and will force a large number of guns to be in this "assault" classification, thereby raising the possibility of any one of these used in a crime to be investigated by police.The fact that the Ban has failed to reduce the already low number of 1-8% in almost 20 years,speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the ban to date.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf
Firearms used in the commission of crimes. 2009
Edmund G. Brown Jr. Attourney General
Firearm Types (Figures 1 and 2)
"Of the 147 firearms examined, there were 120 (81.6 percent) handguns, 13 (8.8 percent) rifles, 11 (7.5 percent) shotguns, and 3 (2 percent) machine guns. Of these firearms, 8 (5.4 percent) were assault weapons (as defined in California Penal code section 12276) and 1 (0.7 percent) was classified as a short-barreled shotgun or rifle. The most commonly encountered caliber was 9 mm Luger, followed by .22 rimfire and .40 Smith & Wesson (S&W), and .380 automatic." (pg2)

California has more officers assaulted with firearms than any other state.In 2011 California saw 373 police assaulted with firearms.The entire midwest area composed of 12 states saw only 291,but with a higher populous of 40,586,632 compared to California's 37,259,192 residents.The northeast region is made up of 6 states with a population of 38,667,768 but only 213 officers were assaulted with a firearm,far less than california.All tables used for the research above "California as a model for assault weapons ban"
tables 1,4,71 will be found at the the end of this collection due to size.

U.S.Constitution

and other relevant

statutes and quotes

The best argument against an "assault weapons" ban is a constitutional one.It is clear that the founders of our nation believed in the right to keep and bear arms,not for sport,but as it applies militarily.The founders thought our right to arms was so important that it was noted second only to our right to free speech,press,religion,as expressed in the 1st amendment.Below are constitutional amendments that may be applied to the argument of the constitution supporting of the peoples right to own "assault weapons".

SECOND AMENDMENT
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.

Definition of militia
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Definition of right

1that which is morally correct, just, or honorable:
she doesn’t understand the difference between right and wrong
the rights and wrongs of the matter
2a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way:
[with infinitive]:
she had every right to be angry
you’re quite within your rights to ask for your money back
there is no right of appeal against the decision
(rights) the authority to perform, publish, film, or televise a particular work, event, etc.:
they sold the paperback rights
Definition of people
noun
1human beings in general or considered collectively:
the earthquake killed 30,000 people
(the people) the citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them:
his economic reforms no longer have the support of the people
(the people) those without special rank or position in society; the populace:
he is very much a man of the people

Definition of arms
noun
1weapons and ammunition; armaments:
they were subjugated by force of arms

Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):
making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
his legal rights were being infringed
[no object]:
I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy

The 2nd amendment clearly states that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms,and that right "shall not be infringed".This means a person shall not have this right reduced or diminished in any way.

NINTH AMENDMENT
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Definition of enumerate
verb
[with object]
mention (a number of things) one by one:
there is not space to enumerate all his works
formal establish the number of:
the 2000 census enumerated 10,493 households in the county

Origin:

early 17th century: from Latin enumerat- 'counted out', from the verb enumerare, from e- (variant of ex-) 'out' + numerus'number'

Definition of construe
verb (construes, construing, construed)
[with object]
interpret (a word or action) in a particular way:
his words could hardly be construed as an apology

Definition of disparage
verb
[with object]
regard or represent as being of little worth:
he never missed an opportunity to disparage his competitors

Definition of retain
verb
continue to have (something); keep possession of:
built in 1830, the house retains many of its original features
not abolish, discard, or alter:
the rights of defendants must be retained
keep in one’s memory:
I retained a few French words and phrases
absorb and continue to hold (a substance):
limestone is known to retain water
(often as adjective retaining) keep (something) in place; hold fixed:
remove the retaining bar
keep (someone) engaged in one’s service:
he has been retained as a freelance
secure the services of (a person, especially an attorney) with a preliminary payment:
retain an attorney to handle the client’s business

The 9th amendment argues against the A.W. ban, as it applies to the argument of a person's "right to safety" outweighing another person's 2nd amendment rights to own an "assault weapon".

AMENDMENT 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Definition of delegate
noun
Pronunciation: /ˈdeligit/

a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.
a member of a committee.
verb
Pronunciation: /ˈdeləˌgāt/

[with object]
entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself:
he delegates routine tasks
the power delegated to him must never be misused
[with object and infinitive] send or authorize (someone) to do something as a representative:
Edward was delegated to meet new arrivals

The 10th amendment plainly states that any power not directly given to the federal government/state government within the constitution,is held by the people.It could and has been argued that,this amendment supports the publics right to have an "assault weapon" because the power to ban such an item is not "delegated" to the federal or state governments,instead it is supported repetitively in the constitution.

AMENDMENT 14

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Definition of abridge
verb
[with object]
1shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense:
the cassettes have been abridged from the original stories
(as adjective abridged)
an abridged text of his speech
2 Law curtail (rights or privileges):
even the right to free speech can be abridged

Definition of immunity
noun (plural immunities)
the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin by the action of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells:
immunity to typhoid seems to have increased spontaneously
protection or exemption from something, especially an obligation or penalty:
the rebels were given immunity from prosecution
Law officially granted exemption from legal proceedings.
(immunity to) lack of susceptibility, especially to something unwelcome or harmful:
products must have an adequate level of immunity to interference
exercises designed to build an immunity to fatigue

Definition of due process
noun
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement.
The 14th amendment specifically notes that all citizens of the U.S. are protected against any state diminishing their rights such as an "assault weapons" ban,and also states that an individuals property such as an "assault weapon" cannot be taken without "due process of law".The 14th amendment also clearly states that all citizens shall have "equal protection of the law".It can be argued that to ban an item such as an "assault weapon" is an infringement of not only the 2nd amendment but other amendments to the constitution as well.

Militia Act of 1792

"every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall,within six months thereafter,provide himself with a good musket or firelock,a sufficient bayonet and belt,two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock"

The militia act of 1792 directly supports the claim that the founders of the U.S. did in fact intend the people to own and keep "assault weapons" of their day.This act in particular states that citizens provide themselves with a musket or firelock(best arms of the day) as well as a bayonet.It is because of this act that the claim of a bayonet lug on a gun being unfit for for civilian use is defeated.

The currently effective Militia Act

" (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia."

This act states that the people,labeled "able bodied males"17-45,are a part of what is specified as the "unorganized militia" and therefore should have access to reasonable weaponry to carry out their duty should the need arise.

The Freedman's Bureau Act (1866)
Sec. 14. And be it furhter enacted, That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion . . . the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (1986)
Sec. 1(b). The Congress finds that -- (1) the rights of citizens (A) to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution; (B) to security against illegal and unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment; (C) against uncompensated taking of property, double jeopardy, and assurance of due process of law under the fifth amendment; and (D) against unconstitutional exercise of authority under the ninth and tenth amendments; require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies.

The above 2 items both support the right guaranteed to the people under the 2nd amendment,as well as specifically citing other constitutional amendments that support a citizens rights under that amendment as well.

below are relevant quotes pertaining to the intentions and meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Sen. John F. Kennedy's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960): "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

Sen. Hubert Humphrey's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960): "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law 902 n. 221 (2000): "Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can paricipate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action."

Above Laurance Tribe,a former mentor to president Obama very precisely makes the point that the proposed ban is unconstitutional when he wrote "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias".This directly supports the claim of assault weapons being necessary from the perspective of a state's authority to organize their own militias,because an "assault weapon" is "designed for the theatre of war" as the bans proponents often mention.
Mr Tribe went on to further reinforce the opposition to a ban based on "sporting needs" of the american people by writing "through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game".The 2nd amendment says nothing about sporting, hunting,or even defense,it simply states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms to ensure an armed civilian militia may be called upon to defend the nation.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt Impacts of The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96 by Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper
"Gun control policies, and especially gun bans, are highly controversial crime control measures, and the debates tend to be dominated by anecdotes and emotion rather than empirical findings."

Most of the above info can be found @ http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
definitions have been taken from the online dictionary of http://oxforddictionaries.com

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/tables/table-71 Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted
Region, Geographic Division, and State by Type of Weapon, 2011
Download Excel
Area Total Firearm Knife or
other cutting
instrument Other
dangerous
weapon Personal
weapons Number of
reporting
agencies Population
covered Number of
officers
employed
Number of victim officers 54,774 2,208 997 7,808 43,761 11,944 251,004,326 535,651
NORTHEAST 7,144 213 119 818 5,994 2,445 38,667,768 91,694
New England 1,732 14 15 215 1,488 571 8,415,163 19,072
Connecticut 846 8 3 126 709 101 3,535,972 8,255
Maine 200 2 3 16 179 145 1,305,057 1,905
Massachusetts 104 2 0 10 92 49 752,553 3,067
New Hampshire 221 1 6 26 188 150 1,175,688 2,228
Rhode Island 285 1 2 34 248 48 1,051,302 2,490
Vermont 76 0 1 3 72 78 594,591 1,127
Middle Atlantic 5,412 199 104 603 4,506 1,874 30,252,605 72,622
New Jersey 2,114 56 29 209 1,820 537 8,459,344 28,415
New York 880 7 12 88 773 462 10,254,433 24,620
Pennsylvania 2,418 136 63 306 1,913 875 11,538,828 19,587
MIDWEST 7,474 291 146 1,240 5,797 2,876 40,586,632 78,032
East North Central 3,166 128 60 661 2,317 1,322 22,527,841 42,304
Illinois1 104 0 0 9 95 1 153,331 264
Indiana 1,168 25 28 385 730 283 5,315,481 8,518
Michigan 1,073 69 24 185 795 537 9,057,828 16,566
Ohio 267 13 4 18 232 131 2,488,825 4,891
Wisconsin 554 21 4 64 465 370 5,512,376 12,065
West North Central 4,308 163 86 579 3,480 1,554 18,058,791 35,728
Iowa 517 13 17 118 369 225 2,869,670 4,272
Kansas 561 8 15 50 488 64 977,429 2,613
Minnesota 308 14 7 74 213 316 5,263,708 8,712
Missouri 2,400 119 35 274 1,972 541 5,883,194 14,403
Nebraska 192 6 2 34 150 207 1,668,579 3,353
North Dakota 106 0 0 13 93 93 666,474 1,149
South Dakota 224 3 10 16 195 108 729,737 1,226
SOUTH 25,028 957 414 3,658 19,999 4,772 102,616,773 232,858
South Atlantic 16,501 519 233 2,188 13,561 2,326 58,297,627 137,932
Delaware 487 18 16 91 362 54 906,750 2,274
District of Columbia2 511 14 9 41 447 1 617,996 3,818
Florida 6,535 221 92 1,096 5,126 398 19,025,991 42,826
Georgia 1,049 49 13 121 866 421 8,722,356 23,662
Maryland 3,488 68 36 281 3,103 152 5,782,501 13,986
North Carolina 2,280 56 30 185 2,009 368 8,800,200 20,605
South Carolina 612 66 9 118 419 318 4,668,211 11,257
Virginia 1,380 20 19 231 1,110 343 8,083,730 16,480
West Virginia 159 7 9 24 119 271 1,689,892 3,024
East South Central 2,674 211 68 563 1,832 821 11,513,513 24,871
Alabama3
Kentucky 799 33 16 143 607 287 3,650,951 5,738
Mississippi 147 10 1 22 114 84 1,465,784 3,073
Tennessee 1,728 168 51 398 1,111 450 6,396,778 16,060
West South Central 5,853 227 113 907 4,606 1,625 32,805,633 70,055
Arkansas 98 8 0 7 83 213 2,568,188 5,242
Louisiana 1,306 39 13 345 909 79 2,630,919 8,703
Oklahoma 686 28 15 111 532 317 3,726,176 6,635
Texas 3,763 152 85 444 3,082 1,016 23,880,350 49,475
WEST 15,128 747 318 2,092 11,971 1,851 69,133,153 133,067
Mountain 4,808 297 142 713 3,656 784 20,920,179 41,173
Arizona 1,900 131 39 283 1,447 89 6,064,833 11,673
Colorado 771 62 23 130 556 212 4,904,612 10,906
Idaho 184 5 6 17 156 105 1,579,613 2,731
Montana 138 6 1 15 116 98 987,728 1,520
Nevada 254 31 13 68 142 15 2,203,633 4,674
New Mexico 886 45 50 147 644 88 1,952,552 4,278
Utah 608 10 8 46 544 116 2,679,175 4,115
Wyoming 67 7 2 7 51 61 548,033 1,276
Pacific 10,320 450 176 1,379 8,315 1,067 48,212,974 91,894
Alaska 381 20 9 44 308 31 714,559 1,252
California 8,377 373 142 1,117 6,745 654 37,259,192 76,679
Hawaii3
Oregon 588 12 7 80 489 149 3,767,318 5,306
Washington 974 45 18 138 773 233 6,471,905 8,657
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/tables/table-1
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed
Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2002–2011
Download Excel
Area Total 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of victim officers 543 56 52 57 55 48 58 41 48 56 72
NORTHEAST 58 5 3 8 5 7 7 3 7 3 10
New England 7 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0
Connecticut 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Massachusetts 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
New Hampshire 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Rhode Island 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vermont 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Middle Atlantic 51 4 3 7 4 6 5 3 7 2 10
New Jersey 7 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2
New York 19 2 2 4 2 3 2 0 0 0 4
Pennsylvania 25 2 0 3 2 2 1 3 6 2 4
MIDWEST 100 12 8 10 10 6 9 9 5 10 21
East North Central 70 10 7 9 3 5 8 6 2 8 12
Illinois 16 2 0 1 0 2 1 3 2 4 1
Indiana 11 0 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 2
Michigan 19 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 3 4
Ohio 17 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 4
Wisconsin 7 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
West North Central 30 2 1 1 7 1 1 3 3 2 9
Iowa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Kansas 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1
Minnesota 7 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 1
Missouri 12 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 3
Nebraska 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Dakota 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
South Dakota 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
SOUTH 254 25 28 27 28 22 32 20 21 22 29
South Atlantic 123 11 15 10 13 11 14 13 7 11 18
Delaware 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
District of Columbia 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Florida 33 1 2 3 2 3 6 3 3 4 6
Georgia 20 1 1 1 5 2 0 2 0 5 3
Maryland 9 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0
North Carolina 17 0 2 3 1 0 3 2 3 1 2
South Carolina 17 5 3 1 1 0 3 2 0 0 2
Virginia 21 1 7 0 3 4 0 3 0 0 3
West Virginia 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
East South Central 54 6 7 8 9 4 3 2 5 4 6
Alabama 20 2 3 5 1 2 1 0 4 1 1
Kentucky 6 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
Mississippi 12 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 3 1
Tennessee 16 2 3 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
West South Central 77 8 6 9 6 7 15 5 9 7 5
Arkansas 7 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1
Louisiana 25 2 3 6 2 2 5 2 0 3 0
Oklahoma 5 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0
Texas 40 5 2 3 3 3 9 3 6 2 4
WEST 111 9 13 9 10 11 9 9 13 18 10
Mountain 41 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 11 5
Arizona 19 2 1 2 1 0 3 2 0 5 3
Colorado 7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 2
Idaho 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Montana 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Nevada 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
New Mexico 5 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0
Utah 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacific 70 6 10 6 6 7 5 7 11 7 5
Alaska 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
California 47 4 6 5 6 6 4 3 5 5 3
Hawaii 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Oregon 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Washington 13 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 6 0 0
PUERTO RICO AND OTHER
OUTLYING AREAS 20 5 0 3 2 2 1 0 2 3 2
American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Puerto Rico 19 5 0 2 2 2 1 0 2 3 2
U.S. Virgin Islands 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...
by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2010–2011
OverviewData DeclarationDownload Excel
Area Year Population1 Violent crime Murder and
nonnegligent
manslaughter Forcible rape Robbery Aggravated assault Property crime Burglary Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft
Number Rate per
100,000 Number Rate per
100,000 Number Rate per
100,000 Number Rate per
100,000 Number Rate per
100,000 Number Rate per
100,000 Number Rate per
100,000 Number Rate per
100,000 Number Rate per
100,000
United States Total2, 3, 4, 5 2010 309,330,219 1,251,248 404.5 14,722 4.8 85,593 27.7 369,089 119.3 781,844 252.8 9,112,625 2,945.9 2,168,459 701.0 6,204,601 2,005.8 739,565 239.1
2011 311,591,917 1,203,564 386.3 14,612 4.7 83,425 26.8 354,396 113.7 751,131 241.1 9,063,173 2,908.7 2,188,005 702.2 6,159,795 1,976.9 715,373 229.6
Percent change -3.8 -4.5 -0.7 -1.5 -2.5 -3.2 -4.0 -4.7 -3.9 -4.6 -0.5 -1.3 +0.9 +0.2 -0.7 -1.4 -3.3 -4.0
Northeast 2010 55,366,108 198,333 358.2 2,312 4.2 10,868 19.6 68,993 124.6 116,160 209.8 1,175,122 2,122.5 235,105 424.6 864,104 1,560.7 75,913 137.1
2011 55,521,598 195,482 352.1 2,169 3.9 10,641 19.2 68,855 124.0 113,817 205.0 1,178,072 2,121.8 242,907 437.5 859,259 1,547.6 75,906 136.7
Percent change -1.4 -1.7 -6.2 -6.4 -2.1 -2.4 -0.2 -0.5 -2.0 -2.3 +0.3 * +3.3 +3.0 -0.6 -0.8 * -0.3
New England 2010 14,453,587 48,174 333.3 420 2.9 3,618 25.0 12,170 84.2 31,966 221.2 336,004 2,324.7 75,328 521.2 237,678 1,644.4 22,998 159.1
2011 14,492,360 45,549 314.3 378 2.6 3,559 24.6 12,119 83.6 29,493 203.5 332,919 2,297.2 76,422 527.3 234,161 1,615.8 22,336 154.1
Percent change -5.4 -5.7 -10.0 -10.2 -1.6 -1.9 -0.4 -0.7 -7.7 -8.0 -0.9 -1.2 +1.5 +1.2 -1.5 -1.7 -2.9 -3.1
Connecticut 2010 3,575,498 10,083 282.0 133 3.7 595 16.6 3,553 99.4 5,802 162.3 78,259 2,188.8 15,145 423.6 56,413 1,577.8 6,701 187.4
2011 3,580,709 9,767 272.8 128 3.6 686 19.2 3,677 102.7 5,276 147.3 77,609 2,167.4 15,679 437.9 55,218 1,542.1 6,712 187.4
Percent change -3.1 -3.3 -3.8 -3.9 +15.3 +15.1 +3.5 +3.3 -9.1 -9.2 -0.8 -1.0 +3.5 +3.4 -2.1 -2.3 +0.2 *
Maine 2010 1,327,379 1,621 122.1 24 1.8 389 29.3 412 31.0 796 60.0 32,900 2,478.6 7,364 554.8 24,547 1,849.3 989 74.5
2011 1,328,188 1,636 123.2 26 2.0 393 29.6 369 27.8 848 63.8 33,809 2,545.5 7,854 591.3 24,877 1,873.0 1,078 81.2
Percent change +0.9 +0.9 +8.3 +8.3 +1.0 +1.0 -10.4 -10.5 +6.5 +6.5 +2.8 +2.7 +6.7 +6.6 +1.3 +1.3 +9.0 +8.9
Massachusetts 2010 6,555,466 30,737 468.9 214 3.3 1,784 27.2 6,897 105.2 21,842 333.2 154,496 2,356.8 37,903 578.2 105,124 1,603.6 11,469 175.0
2011 6,587,536 28,219 428.4 185 2.8 1,628 24.7 6,768 102.7 19,638 298.1 148,790 2,258.7 36,533 554.6 101,471 1,540.3 10,786 163.7
Percent change -8.2 -8.6 -13.6 -14.0 -8.7 -9.2 -1.9 -2.3 -10.1 -10.5 -3.7 -4.2 -3.6 -4.1 -3.5 -3.9 -6.0 -6.4
New Hampshire 2010 1,316,807 2,204 167.4 13 1.0 411 31.2 450 34.2 1,330 101.0 29,230 2,219.8 5,444 413.4 22,789 1,730.6 997 75.7
2011 1,318,194 2,478 188.0 17 1.3 429 32.5 474 36.0 1,558 118.2 30,106 2,283.9 5,749 436.1 23,383 1,773.9 974 73.9
Percent change +12.4 +12.3 +30.8 +30.6 +4.4 +4.3 +5.3 +5.2 +17.1 +17.0 +3.0 +2.9 +5.6 +5.5 +2.6 +2.5 -2.3 -2.4
Rhode Island 2010 1,052,528 2,709 257.4 29 2.8 298 28.3 782 74.3 1,600 152.0 26,959 2,561.4 6,124 581.8 18,432 1,751.2 2,403 228.3
2011 1,051,302 2,602 247.5 14 1.3 304 28.9 746 71.0 1,538 146.3 28,141 2,676.8 6,964 662.4 18,890 1,796.8 2,287 217.5
Percent change -3.9 -3.8 -51.7 -51.7 +2.0 +2.1 -4.6 -4.5 -3.9 -3.8 +4.4 +4.5 +13.7 +13.8 +2.5 +2.6 -4.8 -4.7
Vermont 2010 625,909 820 131.0 7 1.1 141 22.5 76 12.1 596 95.2 14,160 2,262.3 3,348 534.9 10,373 1,657.3 439 70.1
2011 626,431 847 135.2 8 1.3 119 19.0 85 13.6 635 101.4 14,464 2,309.0 3,643 581.5 10,322 1,647.7 499 79.7
Percent change +3.3 +3.2 +14.3 +14.2 -15.6 -15.7 +11.8 +11.7 +6.5 +6.5 +2.1 +2.1 +8.8 +8.7 -0.5 -0.6 +13.7 +13.6
Middle Atlantic 2010 40,912,521 150,159 367.0 1,892 4.6 7,250 17.7 56,823 138.9 84,194 205.8 839,118 2,051.0 159,777 390.5 626,426 1,531.1 52,915 129.3
2011 41,029,238 149,933 365.4 1,791 4.4 7,082 17.3 56,736 138.3 84,324 205.5 845,153 2,059.9 166,485 405.8 625,098 1,523.5 53,570 130.6
Percent change -0.2 -0.4 -5.3 -5.6 -2.3 -2.6 -0.2 -0.4 +0.2 -0.1 +0.7 +0.4 +4.2 +3.9 -0.2 -0.5 +1.2 +0.9
New Jersey 2010 8,799,593 27,055 307.5 371 4.2 981 11.1 11,818 134.3 13,885 157.8 183,042 2,080.1 38,732 440.2 128,754 1,463.2 15,556 176.8
2011 8,821,155 27,203 308.4 380 4.3 1,006 11.4 12,209 138.4 13,608 154.3 189,719 2,150.7 43,238 490.2 129,066 1,463.1 17,415 197.4
Percent change +0.5 +0.3 +2.4 +2.2 +2.5 +2.3 +3.3 +3.1 -2.0 -2.2 +3.6 +3.4 +11.6 +11.4 +0.2 * +12.0 +11.7
New York 2010 19,395,206 76,492 394.4 868 4.5 2,797 14.4 28,630 147.6 44,197 227.9 379,710 1,957.8 65,839 339.5 293,232 1,511.9 20,639 106.4
2011 19,465,197 77,490 398.1 774 4.0 2,752 14.1 28,396 145.9 45,568 234.1 372,255 1,912.4 65,397 336.0 287,547 1,477.2 19,311 99.2
Percent change +1.3 +0.9 -10.8 -11.2 -1.6 -2.0 -0.8 -1.2 +3.1 +2.7 -2.0 -2.3 -0.7 -1.0 -1.9 -2.3 -6.4 -6.8
Pennsylvania 2010 12,717,722 46,612 366.5 653 5.1 3,472 27.3 16,375 128.8 26,112 205.3 276,366 2,173.1 55,206 434.1 204,440 1,607.5 16,720 131.5
2011 12,742,886 45,240 355.0 637 5.0 3,324 26.1 16,131 126.6 25,148 197.3 283,179 2,222.3 57,850 454.0 208,485 1,636.1 16,844 132.2
Percent change -2.9 -3.1 -2.5 -2.6 -4.3 -4.5 -1.5 -1.7 -3.7 -3.9 +2.5 +2.3 +4.8 +4.6 +2.0 +1.8 +0.7 +0.5
Midwest3 2010 66,976,458 244,866 365.6 2,924 4.4 21,056 31.4 72,856 108.8 148,030 221.0 1,910,619 2,852.7 452,331 675.4 1,319,359 1,969.9 138,929 207.4
2011 67,158,835 235,022 349.9 3,003 4.5 21,097 31.4 71,345 106.2 139,577 207.8 1,910,201 2,844.3 460,037 685.0 1,311,642 1,953.0 138,522 206.3
Percent change -4.0 -4.3 +2.7 +2.4 +0.2 -0.1 -2.1 -2.3 -5.7 -6.0 * -0.3 +1.7 +1.4 -0.6 -0.9 -0.3 -0.6
East North Central 2010 46,439,372 177,281 381.7 2,186 4.7 14,480 31.2 59,469 128.1 101,146 217.8 1,339,456 2,884.3 334,148 719.5 906,207 1,951.4 99,101 213.4
2011 46,519,084 169,872 365.2 2,295 4.9 14,606 31.4 58,151 125.0 94,820 203.8 1,336,305 2,872.6 339,256 729.3 898,668 1,931.8 98,381 211.5
Percent change -4.2 -4.3 +5.0 +4.8 +0.9 +0.7 -2.2 -2.4 -6.3 -6.4 -0.2 -0.4 +1.5 +1.4 -0.8 -1.0 -0.7 -0.9
Illinois 2010 12,841,980 57,132 444.9 704 5.5 3,066 23.9 20,386 158.7 32,976 256.8 349,064 2,718.1 77,472 603.3 242,681 1,889.7 28,911 225.1
2011 12,869,257 55,247 429.3 721 5.6 3,708 28.8 20,254 157.4 30,564 237.5 346,025 2,688.8 77,746 604.1 239,510 1,861.1 28,769 223.5
Percent change -3.3 -3.5 +2.4 +2.2 +20.9 +20.7 -0.6 -0.9 -7.3 -7.5 -0.9 -1.1 +0.4 +0.1 -1.3 -1.5 -0.5 -0.7
Indiana 2010 6,490,622 20,983 323.3 268 4.1 1,760 27.1 6,559 101.1 12,396 191.0 199,274 3,070.2 48,570 748.3 137,204 2,113.9 13,500 208.0
2011 6,516,922 21,626 331.8 312 4.8 1,757 27.0 6,978 107.1 12,579 193.0 206,055 3,161.8 50,551 775.7 140,688 2,158.8 14,816 227.3
Percent change +3.1 +2.6 +16.4 +15.9 -0.2 -0.6 +6.4 +6.0 +1.5 +1.1 +3.4 +3.0 +4.1 +3.7 +2.5 +2.1 +9.7 +9.3
Michigan 2010 9,877,143 48,693 493.0 580 5.9 4,733 47.9 11,522 116.7 31,858 322.5 271,501 2,748.8 74,345 752.7 169,748 1,718.6 27,408 277.5
2011 9,876,187 43,983 445.3 613 6.2 4,347 44.0 10,393 105.2 28,630 289.9 257,979 2,612.1 71,596 724.9 160,887 1,629.0 25,496 258.2
Percent change -9.7 -9.7 +5.7 +5.7 -8.2 -8.1 -9.8 -9.8 -10.1 -10.1 -5.0 -5.0 -3.7 -3.7 -5.2 -5.2 -7.0 -7.0
Ohio 2010 11,537,968 36,306 314.7 479 4.2 3,730 32.3 16,486 142.9 15,611 135.3 376,836 3,266.1 107,125 928.5 248,581 2,154.5 21,130 183.1
2011 11,544,951 35,484 307.4 513 4.4 3,631 31.5 16,057 139.1 15,283 132.4 387,297 3,354.7 112,709 976.3 253,520 2,195.9 21,068 182.5
Percent change -2.3 -2.3 +7.1 +7.0 -2.7 -2.7 -2.6 -2.7 -2.1 -2.2 +2.8 +2.7 +5.2 +5.1 +2.0 +1.9 -0.3 -0.4
Wisconsin 2010 5,691,659 14,167 248.9 155 2.7 1,191 20.9 4,516 79.3 8,305 145.9 142,781 2,508.6 26,636 468.0 107,993 1,897.4 8,152 143.2
2011 5,711,767 13,532 236.9 136 2.4 1,163 20.4 4,469 78.2 7,764 135.9 138,949 2,432.7 26,654 466.7 104,063 1,821.9 8,232 144.1
Percent change -4.5 -4.8 -12.3 -12.6 -2.4 -2.7 -1.0 -1.4 -6.5 -6.8 -2.7 -3.0 +0.1 -0.3 -3.6 -4.0 +1.0 +0.6
West North Central3 2010 20,537,086 67,585 329.1 738 3.6 6,576 32.0 13,387 65.2 46,884 228.3 571,163 2,781.1 118,183 575.5 413,152 2,011.7 39,828 193.9
2011 20,639,751 65,150 315.7 708 3.4 6,491 31.4 13,194 63.9 44,757 216.8 573,896 2,780.5 120,781 585.2 412,974 2,000.9 40,141 194.5
Percent change -3.6 -4.1 -4.1 -4.5 -1.3 -1.8 -1.4 -1.9 -4.5 -5.0 +0.5 * +2.2 +1.7 * -0.5 +0.8 +0.3
Iowa 2010 3,050,202 8,191 268.5 38 1.2 883 28.9 1,012 33.2 6,258 205.2 68,740 2,253.6 16,746 549.0 48,194 1,580.0 3,800 124.6
2011 3,062,309 7,826 255.6 46 1.5 834 27.2 825 26.9 6,121 199.9 71,361 2,330.3 17,400 568.2 50,025 1,633.6 3,936 128.5
Percent change -4.5 -4.8 +21.1 +20.6 -5.5 -5.9 -18.5 -18.8 -2.2 -2.6 +3.8 +3.4 +3.9 +3.5 +3.8 +3.4 +3.6 +3.2
Kansas 2010 2,859,143 10,602 370.8 97 3.4 1,146 40.1 1,538 53.8 7,821 273.5 89,109 3,116.6 19,315 675.6 63,774 2,230.5 6,020 210.6
2011 2,871,238 10,162 353.9 110 3.8 1,085 37.8 1,459 50.8 7,508 261.5 88,438 3,080.1 18,789 654.4 62,972 2,193.2 6,677 232.5
Percent change -4.2 -4.6 +13.4 +12.9 -5.3 -5.7 -5.1 -5.5 -4.0 -4.4 -0.8 -1.2 -2.7 -3.1 -1.3 -1.7 +10.9 +10.4
Minnesota3 2010 5,310,658 12,515 235.7 96 1.8 1,798 33.9 3,388 63.8 7,233 136.2 136,431 2,569.0 24,415 459.7 103,429 1,947.6 8,587 161.7
2011 5,344,861 11,825 221.2 74 1.4 1,664 31.1 3,386 63.4 6,701 125.4 136,264 2,549.4 25,724 481.3 102,358 1,915.1 8,182 153.1
Percent change -5.5 -6.1 -22.9 -23.4 -7.5 -8.0 -0.1 -0.7 -7.4 -7.9 -0.1 -0.8 +5.4 +4.7 -1.0 -1.7 -4.7 -5.3
Missouri 2010 5,995,715 27,440 457.7 420 7.0 1,445 24.1 6,185 103.2 19,390 323.4 200,858 3,350.0 44,197 737.1 140,526 2,343.8 16,135 269.1
2011 6,010,688 26,889 447.4 366 6.1 1,458 24.3 6,269 104.3 18,796 312.7 198,882 3,308.8 44,822 745.7 138,743 2,308.3 15,317 254.8
Percent change -2.0 -2.3 -12.9 -13.1 +0.9 +0.6 +1.4 +1.1 -3.1 -3.3 -1.0 -1.2 +1.4 +1.2 -1.3 -1.5 -5.1 -5.3
Nebraska 2010 1,830,141 5,093 278.3 54 3.0 674 36.8 1,020 55.7 3,345 182.8 48,827 2,667.9 8,318 454.5 36,896 2,016.0 3,613 197.4
2011 1,842,641 4,665 253.2 67 3.6 695 37.7 997 54.1 2,906 157.7 50,726 2,752.9 8,714 472.9 37,909 2,057.3 4,103 222.7
Percent change -8.4 -9.0 +24.1 +23.2 +3.1 +2.4 -2.3 -2.9 -13.1 -13.7 +3.9 +3.2 +4.8 +4.1 +2.7 +2.0 +13.6 +12.8
North Dakota 2010 674,629 1,548 229.5 10 1.5 245 36.3 90 13.3 1,203 178.3 12,010 1,780.2 2,000 296.5 9,137 1,354.4 873 129.4
2011 683,932 1,689 247.0 24 3.5 259 37.9 91 13.3 1,315 192.3 13,246 1,936.7 2,433 355.7 9,833 1,437.7 980 143.3
Percent change +9.1 +7.6 +140.0 +136.7 +5.7 +4.3 +1.1 -0.3 +9.3 +7.8 +10.3 +8.8 +21.7 +20.0 +7.6 +6.2 +12.3 +10.7
South Dakota 2010 816,598 2,196 268.9 23 2.8 385 47.1 154 18.9 1,634 200.1 15,188 1,859.9 3,192 390.9 11,196 1,371.1 800 98.0
2011 824,082 2,094 254.1 21 2.5 496 60.2 167 20.3 1,410 171.1 14,979 1,817.7 2,899 351.8 11,134 1,351.1 946 114.8
Percent change -4.6 -5.5 -8.7 -9.5 +28.8 +27.7 +8.4 +7.5 -13.7 -14.5 -1.4 -2.3 -9.2 -10.0 -0.6 -1.5 +18.3 +17.2
South4,5 2010 114,857,529 518,808 451.7 6,428 5.6 32,255 28.1 140,371 122.2 339,754 295.8 3,946,323 3,435.8 1,017,240 885.7 2,656,545 2,312.9 272,538 237.3
2011 116,046,736 497,663 428.8 6,371 5.5 31,560 27.2 132,467 114.1 327,265 282.0 3,911,717 3,370.8 1,017,528 876.8 2,634,765 2,270.4 259,424 223.6
Percent change -4.1 -5.1 -0.9 -1.9 -2.2 -3.2 -5.6 -6.6 -3.7 -4.7 -0.9 -1.9 * -1.0 -0.8 -1.8 -4.8 -5.8
South Atlantic4 2010 59,916,816 271,650 453.4 3,324 5.5 14,716 24.6 76,767 128.1 176,843 295.1 1,994,677 3,329.1 505,222 843.2 1,347,995 2,249.8 141,460 236.1
2011 60,513,771 258,452 427.1 3,296 5.4 14,514 24.0 73,947 122.2 166,695 275.5 2,002,003 3,308.3 507,847 839.2 1,360,332 2,248.0 133,824 221.1
Percent change -4.9 -5.8 -0.8 -1.8 -1.4 -2.3 -3.7 -4.6 -5.7 -6.7 +0.4 -0.6 +0.5 -0.5 +0.9 -0.1 -5.4 -6.3
Delaware 2010 899,792 5,608 623.3 51 5.7 326 36.2 1,839 204.4 3,392 377.0 31,078 3,453.9 7,550 839.1 21,593 2,399.8 1,935 215.0
2011 907,135 5,075 559.5 41 4.5 289 31.9 1,538 169.5 3,207 353.5 30,939 3,410.6 7,531 830.2 21,878 2,411.8 1,530 168.7
Percent change -9.5 -10.2 -19.6 -20.3 -11.3 -12.1 -16.4 -17.0 -5.5 -6.2 -0.4 -1.3 -0.3 -1.1 +1.3 +0.5 -20.9 -21.6
District of Columbia4 2010 604,912 8,026 1,326.8 132 21.8 187 30.9 4,325 715.0 3,382 559.1 28,802 4,761.4 4,233 699.8 19,514 3,225.9 5,055 835.7
2011 617,996 7,429 1,202.1 108 17.5 173 28.0 4,093 662.3 3,055 494.3 29,636 4,795.5 3,850 623.0 21,330 3,451.5 4,456 721.0
Percent change -7.4 -9.4 -18.2 -19.9 -7.5 -9.4 -5.4 -7.4 -9.7 -11.6 +2.9 +0.7 -9.0 -11.0 +9.3 +7.0 -11.8 -13.7
Florida 2010 18,838,613 101,969 541.3 987 5.2 5,373 28.5 26,086 138.5 69,523 369.0 669,035 3,551.4 169,119 897.7 458,454 2,433.6 41,462 220.1
2011 19,057,542 98,199 515.3 984 5.2 5,274 27.7 25,622 134.4 66,319 348.0 671,200 3,522.0 170,171 892.9 461,408 2,421.1 39,621 207.9
Percent change -3.7 -4.8 -0.3 -1.4 -1.8 -3.0 -1.8 -2.9 -4.6 -5.7 +0.3 -0.8 +0.6 -0.5 +0.6 -0.5 -4.4 -5.5
Georgia 2010 9,712,157 39,068 402.3 555 5.7 2,107 21.7 12,372 127.4 24,034 247.5 353,449 3,639.2 96,947 998.2 226,161 2,328.6 30,341 312.4
2011 9,815,210 36,634 373.2 554 5.6 2,053 20.9 12,148 123.8 21,879 222.9 355,952 3,626.5 95,657 974.6 230,820 2,351.7 29,475 300.3
Percent change -6.2 -7.2 -0.2 -1.2 -2.6 -3.6 -1.8 -2.8 -9.0 -9.9 +0.7 -0.3 -1.3 -2.4 +2.1 +1.0 -2.9 -3.9
Maryland 2010 5,785,681 31,607 546.3 426 7.4 1,228 21.2 11,054 191.1 18,899 326.7 173,309 2,995.5 36,704 634.4 118,578 2,049.5 18,027 311.6
2011 5,828,289 28,797 494.1 398 6.8 1,194 20.5 10,343 177.5 16,862 289.3 166,699 2,860.2 35,784 614.0 114,847 1,970.5 16,068 275.7
Percent change -8.9 -9.6 -6.6 -7.3 -2.8 -3.5 -6.4 -7.1 -10.8 -11.4 -3.8 -4.5 -2.5 -3.2 -3.1 -3.9 -10.9 -11.5
North Carolina 2010 9,560,234 34,679 362.7 474 5.0 2,002 20.9 9,620 100.6 22,583 236.2 329,202 3,443.5 102,826 1,075.6 208,057 2,176.3 18,319 191.6
2011 9,656,401 33,774 349.8 508 5.3 1,995 20.7 9,550 98.9 21,721 224.9 340,562 3,526.8 106,144 1,099.2 217,386 2,251.2 17,032 176.4
Percent change -2.6 -3.6 +7.2 +6.1 -0.3 -1.3 -0.7 -1.7 -3.8 -4.8 +3.5 +2.4 +3.2 +2.2 +4.5 +3.4 -7.0 -8.0
South Carolina 2010 4,637,106 27,923 602.2 265 5.7 1,551 33.4 5,017 108.2 21,090 454.8 181,098 3,905.4 46,261 997.6 121,544 2,621.1 13,293 286.7
2011 4,679,230 26,760 571.9 320 6.8 1,612 34.5 4,313 92.2 20,515 438.4 182,685 3,904.2 46,921 1,002.8 122,100 2,609.4 13,664 292.0
Percent change -4.2 -5.0 +20.8 +19.7 +3.9 +3.0 -14.0 -14.8 -2.7 -3.6 +0.9 * +1.4 +0.5 +0.5 -0.4 +2.8 +1.9
Virginia 2010 8,023,953 17,184 214.2 376 4.7 1,580 19.7 5,678 70.8 9,550 119.0 187,403 2,335.5 30,804 383.9 145,990 1,819.4 10,609 132.2
2011 8,096,604 15,923 196.7 303 3.7 1,536 19.0 5,430 67.1 8,654 106.9 182,141 2,249.6 30,597 377.9 141,820 1,751.6 9,724 120.1
Percent change -7.3 -8.2 -19.4 -20.1 -2.8 -3.7 -4.4 -5.2 -9.4 -10.2 -2.8 -3.7 -0.7 -1.6 -2.9 -3.7 -8.3 -9.2
West Virginia 2010 1,854,368 5,586 301.2 58 3.1 362 19.5 776 41.8 4,390 236.7 41,301 2,227.2 10,778 581.2 28,104 1,515.6 2,419 130.4
2011 1,855,364 5,861 315.9 80 4.3 388 20.9 910 49.0 4,483 241.6 42,189 2,273.9 11,192 603.2 28,743 1,549.2 2,254 121.5
Percent change +4.9 +4.9 +37.9 +37.9 +7.2 +7.1 +17.3 +17.2 +2.1 +2.1 +2.2 +2.1 +3.8 +3.8 +2.3 +2.2 -6.8 -6.9
East South Central5 2010 18,460,132 75,875 411.0 1,026 5.6 5,897 31.9 19,750 107.0 49,202 266.5 601,449 3,258.1 167,673 908.3 396,565 2,148.2 37,211 201.6
2011 18,553,961 77,560 418.0 1,066 5.7 5,723 30.8 19,176 103.4 51,595 278.1 611,924 3,298.1 177,326 955.7 398,302 2,146.7 36,296 195.6
Percent change +2.2 +1.7 +3.9 +3.4 -3.0 -3.4 -2.9 -3.4 +4.9 +4.3 +1.7 +1.2 +5.8 +5.2 +0.4 -0.1 -2.5 -3.0
Alabama5 2010 4,785,401 18,363 383.7 275 5.7 1,355 28.3 4,864 101.6 11,869 248.0 168,828 3,528.0 42,484 887.8 115,564 2,414.9 10,780 225.3
2011 4,802,740 20,174 420.1 301 6.3 1,371 28.5 4,910 102.2 13,592 283.0 173,190 3,606.1 51,117 1,064.3 111,411 2,319.7 10,662 222.0
Percent change +9.9 +9.5 +9.5 +9.1 +1.2 +0.8 +0.9 +0.6 +14.5 +14.1 +2.6 +2.2 +20.3 +19.9 -3.6 -3.9 -1.1 -1.5
Kentucky 2010 4,347,223 10,604 243.9 188 4.3 1,438 33.1 3,748 86.2 5,230 120.3 111,170 2,557.3 30,443 700.3 74,488 1,713.5 6,239 143.5
2011 4,369,356 10,406 238.2 153 3.5 1,463 33.5 3,693 84.5 5,097 116.7 118,358 2,708.8 32,553 745.0 79,132 1,811.1 6,673 152.7
Percent change -1.9 -2.4 -18.6 -19.0 +1.7 +1.2 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 +6.5 +5.9 +6.9 +6.4 +6.2 +5.7 +7.0 +6.4
Mississippi 2010 2,970,072 7,999 269.3 204 6.9 931 31.3 2,777 93.5 4,087 137.6 88,596 2,983.0 30,453 1,025.3 52,784 1,777.2 5,359 180.4
2011 2,978,512 8,036 269.8 239 8.0 865 29.0 2,492 83.7 4,440 149.1 90,115 3,025.5 30,907 1,037.7 54,283 1,822.5 4,925 165.4
Percent change +0.5 +0.2 +17.2 +16.8 -7.1 -7.4 -10.3 -10.5 +8.6 +8.3 +1.7 +1.4 +1.5 +1.2 +2.8 +2.5 -8.1 -8.4
Tennessee 2010 6,357,436 38,909 612.0 359 5.6 2,173 34.2 8,361 131.5 28,016 440.7 232,855 3,662.7 64,293 1,011.3 153,729 2,418.1 14,833 233.3
2011 6,403,353 38,944 608.2 373 5.8 2,024 31.6 8,081 126.2 28,466 444.5 230,261 3,595.9 62,749 979.9 153,476 2,396.8 14,036 219.2
Percent change +0.1 -0.6 +3.9 +3.2 -6.9 -7.5 -3.3 -4.0 +1.6 +0.9 -1.1 -1.8 -2.4 -3.1 -0.2 -0.9 -5.4 -6.1
West South Central 2010 36,480,581 171,283 469.5 2,078 5.7 11,642 31.9 43,854 120.2 113,709 311.7 1,350,197 3,701.1 344,345 943.9 911,985 2,499.9 93,867 257.3
2011 36,979,004 161,651 437.1 2,009 5.4 11,323 30.6 39,344 106.4 108,975 294.7 1,297,790 3,509.5 332,355 898.8 876,131 2,369.3 89,304 241.5
Percent change -5.6 -6.9 -3.3 -4.6 -2.7 -4.1 -10.3 -11.5 -4.2 -5.5 -3.9 -5.2 -3.5 -4.8 -3.9 -5.2 -4.9 -6.1
Arkansas 2010 2,921,588 14,711 503.5 134 4.6 1,321 45.2 2,369 81.1 10,887 372.6 103,820 3,553.5 32,463 1,111.1 65,796 2,252.1 5,561 190.3
2011 2,937,979 14,129 480.9 162 5.5 1,213 41.3 2,428 82.6 10,326 351.5 110,295 3,754.1 34,471 1,173.3 70,012 2,383.0 5,812 197.8
Percent change -4.0 -4.5 +20.9 +20.2 -8.2 -8.7 +2.5 +1.9 -5.2 -5.7 +6.2 +5.6 +6.2 +5.6 +6.4 +5.8 +4.5 +3.9
Louisiana 2010 4,545,343 25,241 555.3 500 11.0 1,230 27.1 5,297 116.5 18,214 400.7 165,667 3,644.8 45,437 999.6 110,260 2,425.8 9,970 219.3
2011 4,574,836 25,406 555.3 513 11.2 1,268 27.7 5,239 114.5 18,386 401.9 168,744 3,688.5 46,320 1,012.5 113,301 2,476.6 9,123 199.4
Percent change +0.7 * +2.6 +1.9 +3.1 +2.4 -1.1 -1.7 +0.9 +0.3 +1.9 +1.2 +1.9 +1.3 +2.8 +2.1 -8.5 -9.1
Oklahoma 2010 3,760,184 18,100 481.4 195 5.2 1,469 39.1 3,345 89.0 13,091 348.1 129,464 3,443.0 37,848 1,006.5 81,303 2,162.2 10,313 274.3
2011 3,791,508 17,243 454.8 208 5.5 1,403 37.0 3,282 86.6 12,350 325.7 127,252 3,356.2 36,341 958.5 79,880 2,106.8 11,031 290.9
Percent change -4.7 -5.5 +6.7 +5.8 -4.5 -5.3 -1.9 -2.7 -5.7 -6.4 -1.7 -2.5 -4.0 -4.8 -1.8 -2.6 +7.0 +6.1
Texas 2010 25,253,466 113,231 448.4 1,249 4.9 7,622 30.2 32,843 130.1 71,517 283.2 951,246 3,766.8 228,597 905.2 654,626 2,592.2 68,023 269.4
2011 25,674,681 104,873 408.5 1,126 4.4 7,439 29.0 28,395 110.6 67,913 264.5 891,499 3,472.3 215,223 838.3 612,938 2,387.3 63,338 246.7
Percent change -7.4 -8.9 -9.8 -11.3 -2.4 -4.0 -13.5 -15.0 -5.0 -6.6 -6.3 -7.8 -5.9 -7.4 -6.4 -7.9 -6.9 -8.4
West5 2010 72,130,124 289,241 401.0 3,058 4.2 21,414 29.7 86,869 120.4 177,900 246.6 2,080,561 2,884.5 463,783 643.0 1,364,593 1,891.8 252,185 349.6
2011 72,864,748 275,397 378.0 3,069 4.2 20,127 27.6 81,729 112.2 170,472 234.0 2,063,183 2,831.5 467,533 641.6 1,354,129 1,858.4 241,521 331.5
Percent change -4.8 -5.7 +0.4 -0.7 -6.0 -7.0 -5.9 -6.9 -4.2 -5.1 -0.8 -1.8 +0.8 -0.2 -0.8 -1.8 -4.2 -5.2
Mountain5 2010 22,133,139 86,182 389.4 943 4.3 8,355 37.7 18,744 84.7 58,140 262.7 666,613 3,011.8 147,888 668.2 460,835 2,082.1 57,890 261.6
2011 22,373,411 82,414 368.4 987 4.4 8,103 36.2 17,959 80.3 55,365 247.5 659,625 2,948.3 147,629 659.8 456,732 2,041.4 55,264 247.0
Percent change -4.4 -5.4 +4.7 +3.5 -3.0 -4.1 -4.2 -5.2 -4.8 -5.8 -1.0 -2.1 -0.2 -1.2 -0.9 -2.0 -4.5 -5.6
Arizona 2010 6,413,158 26,528 413.6 408 6.4 2,191 34.2 6,953 108.4 16,976 264.7 226,802 3,536.5 50,932 794.2 154,137 2,403.4 21,733 338.9
2011 6,482,505 26,311 405.9 405 6.2 2,264 34.9 7,127 109.9 16,515 254.8 230,422 3,554.5 54,929 847.3 155,664 2,401.3 19,829 305.9
Percent change -0.8 -1.9 -0.7 -1.8 +3.3 +2.2 +2.5 +1.4 -2.7 -3.8 +1.6 +0.5 +7.8 +6.7 +1.0 -0.1 -8.8 -9.7
Colorado 2010 5,047,692 16,339 323.7 129 2.6 2,230 44.2 3,164 62.7 10,816 214.3 135,001 2,674.5 26,196 519.0 97,534 1,932.2 11,271 223.3
2011 5,116,796 16,383 320.2 149 2.9 2,278 44.5 3,306 64.6 10,650 208.1 133,361 2,606.3 25,768 503.6 96,546 1,886.8 11,047 215.9
Percent change +0.3 -1.1 +15.5 +13.9 +2.2 +0.8 +4.5 +3.1 -1.5 -2.9 -1.2 -2.5 -1.6 -3.0 -1.0 -2.3 -2.0 -3.3
Idaho 2010 1,571,102 3,464 220.5 22 1.4 533 33.9 213 13.6 2,696 171.6 31,436 2,000.9 6,513 414.5 23,594 1,501.7 1,329 84.6
2011 1,584,985 3,184 200.9 36 2.3 435 27.4 184 11.6 2,529 159.6 32,787 2,068.6 6,920 436.6 24,534 1,547.9 1,333 84.1
Percent change -8.1 -8.9 +63.6 +62.2 -18.4 -19.1 -13.6 -14.4 -6.2 -7.0 +4.3 +3.4 +6.2 +5.3 +4.0 +3.1 +0.3 -0.6
Montana5 2010 990,958 2,733 275.8 25 2.5 332 33.5 154 15.5 2,222 224.2 25,409 2,564.1 3,692 372.6 20,166 2,035.0 1,551 156.5
2011 998,199 2,670 267.5 28 2.8 357 35.8 169 16.9 2,116 212.0 23,155 2,319.7 3,390 339.6 18,307 1,834.0 1,458 146.1
Percent change -2.3 -3.0 +12.0 +11.2 +7.5 +6.8 +9.7 +8.9 -4.8 -5.5 -8.9 -9.5 -8.2 -8.8 -9.2 -9.9 -6.0 -6.7
Nevada 2010 2,704,283 17,929 663.0 158 5.8 965 35.7 5,298 195.9 11,508 425.5 75,004 2,773.5 22,286 824.1 42,533 1,572.8 10,185 376.6
2011 2,723,322 15,309 562.1 141 5.2 912 33.5 4,299 157.9 9,957 365.6 69,731 2,560.5 20,214 742.3 40,032 1,470.0 9,485 348.3
Percent change -14.6 -15.2 -10.8 -11.4 -5.5 -6.2 -18.9 -19.4 -13.5 -14.1 -7.0 -7.7 -9.3 -9.9 -5.9 -6.5 -6.9 -7.5
New Mexico 2010 2,065,913 12,147 588.0 140 6.8 959 46.4 1,616 78.2 9,432 456.6 70,776 3,425.9 21,023 1,017.6 44,503 2,154.2 5,250 254.1
2011 2,082,224 11,817 567.5 156 7.5 857 41.2 1,722 82.7 9,082 436.2 73,534 3,531.5 21,423 1,028.9 46,703 2,242.9 5,408 259.7
Percent change -2.7 -3.5 +11.4 +10.6 -10.6 -11.3 +6.6 +5.7 -3.7 -4.5 +3.9 +3.1 +1.9 +1.1 +4.9 +4.1 +3.0 +2.2
Utah 2010 2,775,479 5,925 213.5 53 1.9 983 35.4 1,269 45.7 3,620 130.4 88,316 3,182.0 15,095 543.9 67,242 2,422.7 5,979 215.4
2011 2,817,222 5,494 195.0 54 1.9 854 30.3 1,081 38.4 3,505 124.4 83,758 2,973.1 13,122 465.8 64,453 2,287.8 6,183 219.5
Percent change -7.3 -8.6 +1.9 +0.4 -13.1 -14.4 -14.8 -16.1 -3.2 -4.6 -5.2 -6.6 -13.1 -14.4 -4.1 -5.6 +3.4 +1.9
Wyoming 2010 564,554 1,117 197.9 8 1.4 162 28.7 77 13.6 870 154.1 13,869 2,456.6 2,151 381.0 11,126 1,970.8 592 104.9
2011 568,158 1,246 219.3 18 3.2 146 25.7 71 12.5 1,011 177.9 12,877 2,266.4 1,863 327.9 10,493 1,846.8 521 91.7
Percent change +11.5 +10.8 +125.0 +123.6 -9.9 -10.4 -7.8 -8.4 +16.2 +15.5 -7.2 -7.7 -13.4 -13.9 -5.7 -6.3 -12.0 -12.6
Pacific 2010 49,996,985 203,059 406.1 2,115 4.2 13,059 26.1 68,125 136.3 119,760 239.5 1,413,948 2,828.1 315,895 631.8 903,758 1,807.6 194,295 388.6
2011 50,491,337 192,983 382.2 2,082 4.1 12,024 23.8 63,770 126.3 115,107 228.0 1,403,558 2,779.8 319,904 633.6 897,397 1,777.3 186,257 368.9
Percent change -5.0 -5.9 -1.6 -2.5 -7.9 -8.8 -6.4 -7.3 -3.9 -4.8 -0.7 -1.7 +1.3 +0.3 -0.7 -1.7 -4.1 -5.1
Alaska 2010 714,146 4,537 635.3 31 4.3 533 74.6 594 83.2 3,379 473.2 20,259 2,836.8 3,105 434.8 15,535 2,175.3 1,619 226.7
2011 722,718 4,383 606.5 29 4.0 420 58.1 576 79.7 3,358 464.6 19,028 2,632.8 2,826 391.0 14,859 2,056.0 1,343 185.8
Percent change -3.4 -4.5 -6.5 -7.6 -21.2 -22.1 -3.0 -4.2 -0.6 -1.8 -6.1 -7.2 -9.0 -10.1 -4.4 -5.5 -17.0 -18.0
California 2010 37,338,198 164,133 439.6 1,809 4.8 8,331 22.3 58,116 155.6 95,877 256.8 981,939 2,629.9 228,857 612.9 600,558 1,608.4 152,524 408.5
2011 37,691,912 154,944 411.1 1,792 4.8 7,663 20.3 54,292 144.0 91,197 242.0 973,901 2,583.8 230,090 610.4 596,963 1,583.8 146,848 389.6
Percent change -5.6 -6.5 -0.9 -1.9 -8.0 -8.9 -6.6 -7.5 -4.9 -5.8 -0.8 -1.7 +0.5 -0.4 -0.6 -1.5 -3.7 -4.6
Hawaii 2010 1,363,359 3,603 264.3 25 1.8 377 27.7 1,065 78.1 2,136 156.7 45,667 3,349.6 8,706 638.6 31,681 2,323.7 5,280 387.3
2011 1,374,810 3,949 287.2 17 1.2 434 31.6 1,042 75.8 2,456 178.6 45,889 3,337.8 10,008 728.0 31,697 2,305.6 4,184 304.3
Percent change +9.6 +8.7 -32.0 -32.6 +15.1 +14.2 -2.2 -3.0 +15.0 +14.0 +0.5 -0.4 +15.0 +14.0 +0.1 -0.8 -20.8 -21.4
Oregon 2010 3,838,332 9,648 251.4 96 2.5 1,239 32.3 2,421 63.1 5,892 153.5 116,657 3,039.3 20,035 522.0 87,494 2,279.5 9,128 237.8
2011 3,871,859 9,586 247.6 82 2.1 1,217 31.4 2,222 57.4 6,065 156.6 120,594 3,114.6 20,448 528.1 91,099 2,352.8 9,047 233.7
Percent change -0.6 -1.5 -14.6 -15.3 -1.8 -2.6 -8.2 -9.0 +2.9 +2.0 +3.4 +2.5 +2.1 +1.2 +4.1 +3.2 -0.9 -1.7
Washington 2010 6,742,950 21,138 313.5 154 2.3 2,579 38.2 5,929 87.9 12,476 185.0 249,426 3,699.1 55,192 818.5 168,490 2,498.8 25,744 381.8
2011 6,830,038 20,121 294.6 162 2.4 2,290 33.5 5,638 82.5 12,031 176.1 244,146 3,574.6 56,532 827.7 162,779 2,383.3 24,835 363.6
Percent change -4.8 -6.0 +5.2 +3.9 -11.2 -12.3 -4.9 -6.1 -3.6 -4.8 -2.1 -3.4 +2.4 +1.1 -3.4 -4.6 -3.5 -4.8

CRY HAVOC and let slip the dogs of war!

Who's Online

Guns Lot Activity
Users
Currently Active Users: 1202 (1 member and 1201 guests)
teko52

Guns Lot Statistics
Stats Topics: 8,650, Comments: 161,042, Members: 23,517
Welcome our newest member: Hank6046

Recent Activity