Technical Notes
1.
Interpreting Information in National Tracing Center Records from Participating
Jurisdiction
This note discusses limitations in using this information to compare
one participating jurisdiction with another and to track the same jurisdiction
from 1 year to the next.
The Youth
Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII) began in 1996. It is an emerging
collaboration among Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials,
ATF field offices, the ATF National Tracing Center, and ATF contractors
from the academic community to improve enforcement of the Federal firearms
laws, especially those relating to illegal firearms transfers to youth
offenders, felons, juveniles, and other prohibited persons.
This is
the third report published by ATF that uses information from trace requests
submitted from YCGII jurisdictions to describe crime guns recovered
by law enforcement agencies in those jurisdictions. This information
improves the knowledge base for the enforcement of Federal and State
firearm laws and regulations. It is, however, subject to several limitations.
These arise out of three basic factors:
First,
the program is undergoing constant change. The effort to achieve comprehensive
tracing has not been fully realized. In 17 jurisdictions, this is the
third year of this program; in 10 jurisdictions, this is the second
full year of participation, and for 11 jurisdictions, this is the first
full year of participation.
Second,
the extent of program implementation varies from one jurisdiction to
another based on each ones size, extent of agency computerization,
information intake procedures, firearms-focused law enforcement activity,
and the nature of its crime gun problem. At this stage of development,
it is not appropriate to attempt to impose a single standard on all
participating jurisdictions.
Third,
the program is still developing. ATF and local law enforcement agencies
are still learning from each other how to best implement this program
and to utilize the information obtained. This report and others to be
produced by the Crime Gun Analysis Branch (CGAB) of the National Tracing
Center are part of that developing process.
These
factors result in data limitations, among them the following:
Some jurisdictions
have not yet reported all their firearms for 1999. Changing law enforcement
procedures to obtain all crime guns from all agencies does not happen
immediately or consistently throughout a particular agency. In such
jurisdictions, the lag in reporting recovered firearms to ATF will generate
data on fewer firearms than law enforcement agencies actually recovered.
The data
reported here reflects the behavior of law enforcement agencies whose
policies and practices, including when and how firearms are recovered
and how those recoveries are recorded, are changing in response to local
attention to firearms crimes. These changes could increase or decrease
the number of firearms trace requests made to the National Tracing Center.
Crime rates
are changing. In
some jurisdictions, like New York and Boston, the number of firearm
related homicides and other crimes has dropped dramatically between
1996 and 1999. Changes in the number of trace requests could reflect
changes in the number of crime guns that come to the attention of law
enforcement agencies.
While
the 38 participating jurisdictions represent a wide spectrum of American
life, they do not represent a national sample of law enforcement agencies
or crime guns recovered by law enforcement agencies. Participation in
this program is voluntary, and jurisdictions included were not selected
to be representative of the nation as a whole, rather they were included
primarily because of a focus on youth gun crime. In 1999, however, 32
of the 38 jurisdictions had a population over 250,000. The population
of these 32 jurisdictions represents more than two-thirds of the population
of all U.S. cities combined with populations of 250,000 or more. This
made it appropriate to generate summary data for these large cities
as a group.
For these
and other reasons, the available data from the participating jurisdictions
does not yet constitute a fully developed statistical series from which
reliable comparisons can be made from one reporting period to the next
or from one participating jurisdiction to another. The data is used
in this report as descriptive of the trace requests of particular jurisdictions
during the past year. The nature of these limitations is similar to
those initially encountered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations
Uniform Crime Reports program (UCR). Begun in the 1930s as a voluntary
program by a few large jurisdictions, the UCR program has been developed
over the past 70 years to include consistent definitions and standards,
detailed reporting procedures, and nearly uniform participation by law
enforcement agencies. The purpose of YCGII is to assist law enforcement
by providing a detailed description of crime guns recovered in a given
jurisdiction during the past year, and that is the most appropriate
use of the data in this report.
2.
National Analysis Based on 67 Percent of Cities with a Population of
250,000 or More
This percentage
is sufficient for this report to constitute a national report on crime
guns in cities of this size. ATF is providing the analysis on a population
basis in order to permit use of crime gun trace information in conjunction
with the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports, which publish the crime statistics
submitted by law enforcement agencies by size of the jurisdictions
population.
3.
Determination of Comprehensive Tracing and the Decision to Generate
City Reports.
During
the summer of 1999, the Crime Gun Analysis Branch (CGAB) sent a survey
to the police chief of each YCGII city. Chiefs were asked how many guns
had been recovered by their departments during the first 6 months of
1999 and during the previous calendar year. About half of the cities
responded. In instances where the survey data was available, CGAB judged
that the city was tracing comprehensively if the number of guns traced
from recoveries during the first half of the year was roughly equal
to the number of gun recoveries claimed on the survey. Where no survey
data was available, CGAB relied on historical trends, judgment, and
the informed opinions of local agents who work with the city police
departments. Cities are discussed below with an indication in parenthesis
where survey data was used to determine comprehensive tracing status.
Ten cities
were determined to be tracing more than 50 percent of their recovered
crime guns but not tracing comprehensively. These include Atlanta, GA
(survey); Birmingham, AL (survey); Bridgeport, CT; Detroit, MI (survey);
Houston, TX (survey); Louisville, KY; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA
(survey); Oakland, CA (survey); and Omaha, NE (survey).
The Houston
Field Division is in the process of establishing an electronic data
recovery and conversion mechanism for retrieving crime gun data directly
from the Houston Police Department data repository. The current data
systems of the Houston Police Department are not compatible with the
systems of ATF. Developing a programming linkage is a work in progress
and completion is anticipated in the near future.
Law enforcement
officials in Denver/Aurora, CO traced 100 percent of their recovered
crime guns for Calendar Year 1999. Because majority of these traces
were not entered into the Firearms Tracing System (FTS) until early
2000, this data was not included in the analysis for this years
report. This data, another 2,003 trace requests, has been received and
entered into the FTS. These data are now available for investigatory
and planning purposes for law enforcement.
The Phoenix,
AZ Police Department (survey) traced 100 percent of their recovered
crime guns for Calendar Year 1999. Because a majority of these traces
were not entered into the FTS until early 2000, this data was not included
in the analysis for this years report. This data, another 2,212
trace requests, has been received and entered into the FTS. These data
are now available for investigatory and planning purposes for law enforcement.
Five cities,
Denver/Aurora, Louisville, Las Vegas, Oakland, and Omaha, took part
in the program for the first time this year. In addition, the level
of tracing in Los Angeles, Oakland, and Salinas may have been affected
by the fact that California maintains a firearms registration system
that allows local investigators to determine ownership of a gun.
Salinas,
CA (survey) and Seattle, WA traced too few firearms to compile City
Reports for these jurisdictions. As part of the partnership with the
Salinas Police Department, ATF provided the Salinas Police Department
with a computer loaded with the ATF Electronic Trace Submission System
(ETSS) software, and Salinas provided a Community Service Officer to
input all recovered firearms. As of October 2000, the Salinas Police
Department had entered approximately 75 firearms for the year 2000.
ATF anticipates that by next year the Salinas Police Department will
significantly increase its tracing submissions. In Seattle, approximately
40 percent of recovered firearms were entered into the ETSS system.
ATF anticipates that by next year Seattle trace submissions will be
significantly increased.
ATF continues
to work closely with police departments to facilitate and institute
comprehensive tracing.
4.
Classification of Traces Based on Time and Geography
In order
to include all crime guns traced from each city during the calendar
year period of this report, the Crime Gun Analysis Branch employed the
following criteria. If the recovery date on the trace fell within 1999,
the trace was included. If no recovery date was given, but the trace
was received by the National Tracing Center during 1999, the trace was
also included. A careful analysis of recovery State, recovery city,
tracing agency ORI Code, tracing agency name, and tracing agency city
was conduced to determine which traces were from recoveries in the 38
cities. The ORI code is used to identify law enforcement agencies in
the Firearms Tracing System database. If the recovery city and State
fields included either a known city name or the name of a known sub-unit
of a YCGII city (for example Bronx, NY), the trace was included in the
analysis. If no recovery city was given, but the tracing agency was
identified as the YCGII citys main police department or an agency
whose jurisdiction was only within the city, the trace was also included.
5.
Calculation of Percentages
The tables
and figures in this report were prepared using SPSS or Microsoft Excel
software. We have chosen to report all percentages as these programs
calculated them. It is occasionally possible, using a calculator or
different software, to produce percentages that differ by as much as
0.1 percent from the reported percentages.
6.
Possessor’s Age:
Table B1
Click for larger image.
7.
Cumulative Percentage of Traced Guns by Time-to-Crime:
Table B2
Click to view larger image.
8.
Time-to-Crime Estimation Procedure
To estimate
the percentage of crime guns rapidly diverted from retail sale at federally
licensed firearms dealers, ATF used the following method:
ATF arrived
at a high-end estimate of the proportion of guns rapidly diverted to
crime gun status by comparing the number of crime guns with a time-to-crime
of less than 3 years, to the number of crime guns with a time-to-crime
of more than 3 years, among the subset of the crime guns submitted for
tracing that were traced to a purchaser and for which the date of purchase
and the age of possessor was available. These methods of estimation
produce a high-end estimate of the proportion of guns diverted from
the retail market because they do not include in the estimate any data
from guns that were not traced because they were manufactured prior
to 1969. They also do not include guns that could not be traced because
they were sold by a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retail gun dealer more
than 20 years ago and the records are no longer available. These 2 categories
of firearms would clearly add to the number of guns with a time-to-crime
of greater than 3 years. The analysis of time-to-crime by age of possessor
using this estimation procedure is presented in the high-end
estimate table.
TABLE
B2
Click to view larger image.
ATF used
two sets of procedures to develop low-end time-to-crime estimates for
crime guns for which the age of possessor was known but for which the
date of purchase was missing. First, all traces terminated because the
guns in question were manufactured before 1990 were assumed to have
a time-to-crime of greater than 3 years. Guns that were sold more than
20 years previously and were not traced because records on them were
not any longer retained would also clearly add to the number of guns
with a time to crime of greater that 3 years. The analysis of time-to-crime
by age of possessor using these estimation procedures produces low-end
estimates of time-to-crime. These estimates are presented below.
TABLE
B3
Click to view larger image.
9.
Names of Firearms Manufacturers.
The names
of firearms manufacturers are typically abbreviated in the National
Tracing Centers Firearms Tracing System and in the Crime Gun Trace
Reports. The column on the left shows how the name of the manufacturer
is shown in these reports. The column on the right shows the full name
of the manufacturer. The list below is not a complete list of firearms
manufacturers, only including references to manufacturers included and
abbreviated in the Crime Gun Trace Reports.
A.A. Arms,
Inc. ................................................................
A A Arms Incorporated
Auto Ordnance ...................................................................
Auto-Ordnance Corp.
Beretta .............................................................................................
Beretta S.p.A.
Beretta (FI Industries).........................................................
Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
Bersa......................................................................................................
Bersa S.A.
Browning...............................................................................
Browning Arms Co.
Colt. ........................................................................................
Colts Mfg. Co., Inc
Davis Industries .................................................................
Davis Industries, Inc.
FIE .............................................................................
Firearms Import & Export
FMAP.......................................................... Fabrica
Militar de Armas Portatiles
Haskell .............................................................................
Haskell Manufacturing
Heckler & Koch .........................................................
Heckler & Koch G.m.b.H.
Heritage Manufacturing....................................... Heritage
Manufacturing, Inc.
Hi-Point ...................................................................................
Hi-Point Firearms
IMI ...............................................................................
Israeli Military Industries
Ithaca Gun Company ................................................
Ithaca Gun Company LLC
Iver Johnson...................................................................
Iver Johnson Arms, Inc.
Izhevsky Mechanical Works....................... Imez (Izhevsky Mechanical
Works)
Jager, Armi ..........................................................................................
Armi Jager
Keltec Industries, Incorporated ........................ KEL-TEC CNC
Industries, Inc.
Llama (Gabilondo & CIA) ........................................................
Llama (Fabrinor)
Lorcin Engineering ................................................
Lorcin Engineering Co. Inc.
Maadi Co. (Helwan) .................................................
Maadi Company (Helwan)
Marlin ...................................................................................
Marlin Firearms Co.
Maverick Arms .....................................................................
Maverick Arms, Inc.
Mossberg ..................................................................
O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.
North China Industries .......................................... China
North Industry Corp.
Phoenix Arms................................................................
Phoenix Arms Company
Remington Arms........................................................
Remington Arms Co., Inc.
Rohm ...........................................................................................
Rohm G.m.b.H.
Rossi .............................................................................................
Rossi Firearms
Ruger ..............................................................................
Sturm Ruger & Co. Inc.
Savage ......................................................................................
Savage Arms, Inc.
Savage/Stevens.........................................................................
Savege Arms, Inc.
Stallard Arms ...........................................................................
Stallard/Maverick
Star .....................................................................
Star, Bonifacio Echeverria S.A.
Tanfoglio .........................................................................
Fratelli Tangoglio S.r.1.
Taurus......................................................................................
Taurus Forjas S.A.
Walther .....................................................................................
Walther G.m.b.H.
Chap
1 | Chap 2 | Chap
3 | Chap 4 | Chap 5
| Appendices | Index