As has been mentioned several times here, statistics are an incredibly effective tool for lying. Let's look at what Schumer said. He indicated that the number of pre-'94 guns traced in crimes has declined from 3.57% to 1.22%. Putting aside for the moment (and this is a BIG concession to him) the validity of the 3.57% starting figure, it seems quite logical that the figure would decline, for a couple of reasons:
1) The number of pre-ban guns has remained essentially static (it has actually declined, as some are destroyed, worn out, etc., but the decline is miniscule). However, the number of functionally identical guns has increased dramatically over the last 9 years. Hence, it would be an expected result that the percentage of pre-ban guns traced in a crime has declined.
2) The word used to describe these guns changed repeatedly during the article. First, it was guns "traced," then "used," and then "recovered." Well, which is it? Nothing like comparing apples to oranges to come up with a dishonest set of statistics.
3) Quite clearly, the supply of pre-ban guns is fixed and declining (albeit slowly), while there are more and more people every year. One not be a PhD in Economics to figure out that this will (and has) caused the price of pre-bans to skyrocket, such that old and heavily used guns are (contrary to any logic) worth far more than those that are functionally identical, but newer and far less (if at all) used. Guess what?: criminals may be pretty stupid as a group, but not so much that they'll ignore such a fact. If they get their hands on a pre-ban (i.e. steal it), they sell it. After all, they're in the business of maximizing profit, and doing this and using a cheaper post-ban gun is perfect for maximizing profits. Hence, there are less of the pre-bans used in crimes now as a percentage of the total than before the ban.
Schumer and company are nothing but a bunch of lying sacks of dung - but no less dangerous because of this. We need to combat these lies at every turn.