I realize that Raven-Jennings-Bryco were not run by "stand-up" types of folks. I just thought that I'd show this because some of the conclusions seem so flawed.
Is it any surprise that cheap pistols are more often used in crime than expensive ones??? Number one, there's more of them. Number two, the criminals don't lose as much if they have to "ditch them". It's kind of like saying that a Chevy is more likely to be the car of choice in a drive-by than a Rolls-Royce.
They mention that either Lorcin or Raven made over 600,000 pistols one year. (That number seems awfully high). Anyway, most numbers that I've seen for Colt state that they make about 25-30,000 1911 style pistols per year. So, it seems obvious that if a company makes 20 times as many pistols as another, their guns would be recovered from criminals/crime scenes 20 times more often.
Using their flawed logic, it seems obvious that we should consider banning less expensive cars (since drunk drivers are WAY more likely to drive a Chevy/Ford than to drive a Lexus/Mercedes). Heck, why not ban any person that makes less than $100k a year, since the gross numbers would show that people who make less than this are more likely to commit crimes than people who make more than $100k per year.
Flawed logic!!
Oh, and notice how they just threw AMT in there. Say, what you want about AMT, but I don't think the quality of their pistols was anywhere near as bad as the Jennings/Lorcin/Raven (reliability is another discussion!!).
