The gun thread
 

On 11/4/2014 9:04 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/4/2014 8:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes
broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the
people's hands?

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't
much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all
states to implement ineffective laws.



Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments:

Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be
in the people's hands?"

Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns"


Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars."

Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent
crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-)

Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to
require all states to implement ineffective laws.

Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration
for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists
in *all* the states. It's a federal law.

At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not
registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of
the gun.

Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth
trying?

That's my argument.








I thought you were done with this thread. ;-)


Ok. I am. It's funny though. You know me. In Massachusetts my views
are considered to be very conservative. One thing I learned in this
thread though is that in many places in the rest of the country I'd be
considered a card-carrying progressive liberal. :-)

Oh well. It's all relative I guess.

The gun thread
 

On Tuesday, 4 November 2014 10:36:47 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2014 8:51 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the
people's hands?

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all
states to implement ineffective laws.



Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments:

Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be
in the people's hands?"

Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns"


Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars."

Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent
crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-)

Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to
require all states to implement ineffective laws.

Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration
for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists
in *all* the states. It's a federal law.

At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not
registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of
the gun.

Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.



===

Your cure is worse than the disease. Take a look at that "friend or
family member" statistic. How do you propose to fix that?



If you are the registered owner of a gun that is used in a crime, you
share the responsibility for the commitment of that crime unless it is
reported as stolen or lost within a time prescribed by law (typically
24-48 hrs).

Transfer of ownership to friends or family requires state registration
by new owner. This does not require paying a FFL. In MA we can do it
on-line and it's free as long as the new owner holds a valid gun permit.

Bingo!
If Johnny's grandson shoots someone or commits a crime with that fancy rifle, Johnny should share a cell with the kid.

The gun thread
 

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 06:53:48 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.



===

Your cure is worse than the disease. Take a look at that "friend or
family member" statistic. How do you propose to fix that?



If you are the registered owner of a gun that is used in a crime, you
share the responsibility for the commitment of that crime unless it is
reported as stolen or lost within a time prescribed by law (typically
24-48 hrs).

Transfer of ownership to friends or family requires state registration
by new owner. This does not require paying a FFL. In MA we can do it
on-line and it's free as long as the new owner holds a valid gun permit.

Bingo!
If Johnny's grandson shoots someone or commits a crime with that fancy rifle, Johnny should share a cell with the kid.

===

None of that prevents the crime. What it does do it make it less
likely that future generations will grow up to be responsible gun
owners, and that would be unfortunate.

The gun thread
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/4/2014 8:51 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the
people's hands?

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all
states to implement ineffective laws.



Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments:

Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be
in the people's hands?"

Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns"


Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars."

Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent
crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-)

Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to
require all states to implement ineffective laws.

Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration
for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists
in *all* the states. It's a federal law.

At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not
registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of
the gun.

Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.



===

Your cure is worse than the disease. Take a look at that "friend or
family member" statistic. How do you propose to fix that?



If you are the registered owner of a gun that is used in a crime, you
share the responsibility for the commitment of that crime unless it is
reported as stolen or lost within a time prescribed by law (typically 24-48 hrs).

Transfer of ownership to friends or family requires state registration by
new owner. This does not require paying a FFL. In MA we can do it
on-line and it's free as long as the new owner holds a valid gun permit.

You may not know the family member stole the gun for a lot longer than 24
hours. How many check their guns daily? As to ineffective laws. They are
even worse than the gun problem. People just start ignoring laws, if you
have bunches of stupid laws. Prohibition spawned criminal dynasties, that
exist today, because of one really stupid admendment to the constitution.

The gun thread
 

wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:07:33 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Prohibition spawned criminal dynasties, that
exist today, because of one really stupid admendment to the constitution.

They perpetuated that when they simply traded prohibition for the drug
war.

Same dynasties, with a few added.

The gun thread
 

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 06:53:48 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

On Tuesday, 4 November 2014 10:36:47 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2014 8:51 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the
people's hands?

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all
states to implement ineffective laws.



Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments:

Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be
in the people's hands?"

Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns"


Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars."

Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent
crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-)

Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to
require all states to implement ineffective laws.

Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration
for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists
in *all* the states. It's a federal law.

At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not
registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of
the gun.

Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.



===

Your cure is worse than the disease. Take a look at that "friend or
family member" statistic. How do you propose to fix that?



If you are the registered owner of a gun that is used in a crime, you
share the responsibility for the commitment of that crime unless it is
reported as stolen or lost within a time prescribed by law (typically
24-48 hrs).

Transfer of ownership to friends or family requires state registration
by new owner. This does not require paying a FFL. In MA we can do it
on-line and it's free as long as the new owner holds a valid gun permit.

Bingo!
If Johnny's grandson shoots someone or commits a crime with that fancy rifle, Johnny should share a cell with the kid.

Why? If I went through the FFL process (not required in this state),
would the results be any different? The crime would still have been
committed.

The gun thread
 

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.

The gun thread
 

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

The gun thread
 

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:50:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

Show me. If it made the TV news, then it made the 'paper' news. You've
been spouting the same bull**** over and over, but have yet to back up
your tripe.

This has been a relatively 'ridicule free' thread until your return.
Thanks.

The gun thread
 

On 11/4/2014 4:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:50:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

Show me. If it made the TV news, then it made the 'paper' news. You've
been spouting the same bull**** over and over, but have yet to back up
your tripe.

This has been a relatively 'ridicule free' thread until your return.
Thanks.



John, I saw the report on TV also. It was on Andersen Cooper's AC360
(CNN) I think it was not long after the Sandy Hook thing. Here's the
video for your viewing pleasu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c

The gun thread
 

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:33:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2014 4:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:50:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

Show me. If it made the TV news, then it made the 'paper' news. You've
been spouting the same bull**** over and over, but have yet to back up
your tripe.

This has been a relatively 'ridicule free' thread until your return.
Thanks.



John, I saw the report on TV also. It was on Andersen Cooper's AC360
(CNN) I think it was not long after the Sandy Hook thing. Here's the
video for your viewing pleasu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c


There you go. Earlier you said, "OK. How?"

One way would be undercover cops at those gun shows. A few arrests and
the word may get around.

(Thanks for the video link. That explains Harry's statements about the
Virginia gun shows - although none of these were in Virginia.)

The gun thread
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/4/2014 4:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:50:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

Show me. If it made the TV news, then it made the 'paper' news. You've
been spouting the same bull**** over and over, but have yet to back up
your tripe.

This has been a relatively 'ridicule free' thread until your return.
Thanks.



John, I saw the report on TV also. It was on Andersen Cooper's AC360
(CNN) I think it was not long after the Sandy Hook thing. Here's the
video for your viewing pleasu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c

And how much of this is true? Seems as if they pay less than market, and
nobody got prosecuted for illegal sales or purchase.

The gun thread
 

On 11/4/2014 6:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/4/2014 4:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:50:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

Show me. If it made the TV news, then it made the 'paper' news. You've
been spouting the same bull**** over and over, but have yet to back up
your tripe.

This has been a relatively 'ridicule free' thread until your return.
Thanks.



John, I saw the report on TV also. It was on Andersen Cooper's AC360
(CNN) I think it was not long after the Sandy Hook thing. Here's the
video for your viewing pleasu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c



And how much of this is true? Seems as if they pay less than market, and
nobody got prosecuted for illegal sales or purchase.


So, what are you saying? CNN faked the whole thing?

The gun thread
 

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 18:20:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2014 6:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/4/2014 4:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:50:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

Show me. If it made the TV news, then it made the 'paper' news. You've
been spouting the same bull**** over and over, but have yet to back up
your tripe.

This has been a relatively 'ridicule free' thread until your return.
Thanks.



John, I saw the report on TV also. It was on Andersen Cooper's AC360
(CNN) I think it was not long after the Sandy Hook thing. Here's the
video for your viewing pleasu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c



And how much of this is true? Seems as if they pay less than market, and
nobody got prosecuted for illegal sales or purchase.


So, what are you saying? CNN faked the whole thing?

Would it be the first time CNN has taken some liberties to promote the
liberal agenda?

....just saying'.

The gun thread
 

On 11/4/2014 6:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2014 6:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/4/2014 4:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:50:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal
source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end
up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a
chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands
today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the
number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and
those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are
74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's
worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen"
guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand
down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns
that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric,
0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just
make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

Show me. If it made the TV news, then it made the 'paper' news. You've
been spouting the same bull**** over and over, but have yet to back up
your tripe.

This has been a relatively 'ridicule free' thread until your return.
Thanks.



John, I saw the report on TV also. It was on Andersen Cooper's AC360
(CNN) I think it was not long after the Sandy Hook thing. Here's the
video for your viewing pleasu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c



And how much of this is true? Seems as if they pay less than market, and
nobody got prosecuted for illegal sales or purchase.


So, what are you saying? CNN faked the whole thing?






I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

The gun thread
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/4/2014 6:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/4/2014 4:05 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:50:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/4/14 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:43:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

Your argument automatically excludes almost 80% of the crime guns
because friends and family may include "borrowed" or "stolen" guns and
it is not likely that these people would ever go to a FFL to hand down
a gun.
There is also about 8% that are not accounted for in that statistic

I am still not sure why the "on the street" number would change that
much if they came from an "illegal source" AKA stolen.

Considering most of the school shooting have involved family guns that
were legally purchased I am not sure that registration is even
significant.

I do find it amusing that after all of this gun show rhetoric, 0.7% of
those guns have showed up in a crime.

BTW "pawn shops" are FFL licensed gun dealers so you can just make the
dealer number 11.1%

And note that no mention is made of 'illegal' purchases at gun shows.
I've been to several in this state. When a weapon is purchased, the
Form 4473 is completed by the buyer and the seller puts the data in a
computer. After a short wait, the transaction is completed. None of
this back door stuff Krause keeps talking about.


Our boy Johnny apparently is unaware of private sellers who frequent
Virginia gun shows and sell guns to buyers without the benefit of the
instant background check. Those sorts of sales have been on TV news
shows many times but perhaps not the local fox news Channel our boy
Johnny watches.

Show me. If it made the TV news, then it made the 'paper' news. You've
been spouting the same bull**** over and over, but have yet to back up
your tripe.

This has been a relatively 'ridicule free' thread until your return.
Thanks.



John, I saw the report on TV also. It was on Andersen Cooper's AC360
(CNN) I think it was not long after the Sandy Hook thing. Here's the
video for your viewing pleasu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c



And how much of this is true? Seems as if they pay less than market, and
nobody got prosecuted for illegal sales or purchase.


So, what are you saying? CNN faked the whole thing?

I would not be surprised.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.

The gun thread
 

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:35:27 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.

Of course Dateline's "To catch a predator" had no problem following through. Many "news" stories have been staged, and later revealed. That this one hasn't doesn't mean it's real.

The gun thread
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.


If this is as common as depicted, why has BATF not put a few
undercover folks in there and sent some sellers to jail? That would
surely make the news. Might even help the problem of too many guns out
there.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:35:27 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.

Of course Dateline's "To catch a predator" had no problem following through. Many "news" stories have been staged, and later revealed. That this one hasn't doesn't mean it's real.



That show was specifically done in concert with law enforcement who were
conducting sting operations. Not really the same thing.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.



They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime...

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:35:27 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.

Of course Dateline's "To catch a predator" had no problem following through. Many "news" stories have been staged, and later revealed. That this one hasn't doesn't mean it's real.


The problem here is the predator shows catch crims, this report would
suggest the reporter was a willing participant in the crime, at least to
the point of conspiracy to commit or effect... That's one way I figure
out a lot of the programs are real or not. There is one called mystery
diners where they put in cameras and planted employees and catch
restaraunt workers stealing and such, same thing with another show where
they try to catch "crooks" stealing from stores etc.. but you can tell
when they let someone go after committing grand larceny or "pretend"
they guy ran right by their security and got away with thousands of
dollars worth of merch..

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.


If this is as common as depicted, why has BATF not put a few
undercover folks in there and sent some sellers to jail? That would
surely make the news. Might even help the problem of too many guns out
there.



They do and are John. Both ineligible buyers and illegal sellers have
been caught and arrested. If you Google "illegal sales at gun show
arrests" it will return about 20,400,000 results for your reading pleasure.

The gun thread
 

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:01:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:35:27 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"....


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.

Of course Dateline's "To catch a predator" had no problem following through. Many "news" stories have been staged, and later revealed. That this one hasn't doesn't mean it's real.



That show was specifically done in concert with law enforcement who were
conducting sting operations. Not really the same thing.

"Dateline NBC aired an investigative report on November 17, 1992, titled "Waiting to Explode". The 60-minute program focused on General Motors' Rounded-Line Chevrolet C/K-Series pickup trucks allegedly exploding upon impact during accidents due to the poor design of fuel tanks. Dateline '​s footage showed a sample of a low-speed accident with the fuel tank exploding. In reality, Dateline NBC producers had rigged the truck's fuel tank with remotely controlled model rocket engines to initiate the explosion.. The program did not disclose the fact that the accident was staged."

But that is.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.

The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to
purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background
checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy.

It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did).

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 9:11 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:01:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:35:27 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.

Of course Dateline's "To catch a predator" had no problem following through. Many "news" stories have been staged, and later revealed. That this one hasn't doesn't mean it's real.



That show was specifically done in concert with law enforcement who were
conducting sting operations. Not really the same thing.

"Dateline NBC aired an investigative report on November 17, 1992, titled "Waiting to Explode". The 60-minute program focused on General Motors' Rounded-Line Chevrolet C/K-Series pickup trucks allegedly exploding upon impact during accidents due to the poor design of fuel tanks. Dateline '​s footage showed a sample of a low-speed accident with the fuel tank exploding. In reality, Dateline NBC producers had rigged the truck's fuel tank with remotely controlled model rocket engines to initiate the explosion. The program did not disclose the fact that the accident was staged."

But that is.



I remember that. Agreed, it was proven it was staged. In their
defense, NBC issued a statement that the problem with the GM trucks
was well known and documented. They just couldn't get the thing to
catch fire for their filming purposes, so they faked what caused the
leaking fuel to ignite. Not exactly honest and they should have
acknowledged it in the documentary.

It turns out that the problem with the side saddle tanks in the trucks
*was* real though. Here's what the Center For Auto Safety says about them:

"The side saddle fuel tank design installed in over 10 million trucks -
all 1973-87 General Motors full-size pickups and cab-chassis trucks
(pickups without beds) and some 1988-91 dual cab or RV chassis - is the
worst auto crash fire defect in the history of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Based on data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (formerly known as the Fatal Accident Reporting System), over
2,000 people were killed in fire crashes involving these trucks from
1973 through 2009. (Attachment A is a list of fatal C/K fire crashes by
state since 1993.) This is more than twenty times as many fatalities as
in the infamous Ford Pinto. Despite a voluntary recall request from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in April 1993
(Attachment B) and an initial defect determination by Transportation
Secretary Federico Pena in October 1994 (Attachment C), GM stubbornly
refused to initiate a recall."


GM has not always been forthcoming in acknowledging defects in their
products. It caught up to them with the recent "key" thing though.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's
very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a
crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.

The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to
purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background
checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy.

It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did).

Is it not a crime to entice someone to commit a crime?

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's
very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a
crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.

Well, if this was the producers intent going in, would that be
conspiracy to commit a crime?

The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to
purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background
checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy.

It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did).

The gun thread
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:10:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.


If this is as common as depicted, why has BATF not put a few
undercover folks in there and sent some sellers to jail? That would
surely make the news. Might even help the problem of too many guns out
there.



They do and are John. Both ineligible buyers and illegal sellers have
been caught and arrested. If you Google "illegal sales at gun show
arrests" it will return about 20,400,000 results for your reading pleasure.

CNN makes a big deal of buying three guns, but how often are the
arrests in the news? The arrests are what's newsworthy!

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 9:41 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's
very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have
questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report"
as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why
their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a
crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.

The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to
purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background
checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy.

It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did).

Is it not a crime to entice someone to commit a crime?


They didn't. They were demonstrating how easy it is for anyone to
purchase guns.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 9:42 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's
very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have
questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report"
as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why
their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a
crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.




Well, if this was the producers intent going in, would that be
conspiracy to commit a crime?

Where did the report say that was the intent of the documentary?
Again, the purpose was to demonstrate how easy it is for anyone to buy a
firearm.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 9:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:10:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.


If this is as common as depicted, why has BATF not put a few
undercover folks in there and sent some sellers to jail? That would
surely make the news. Might even help the problem of too many guns out
there.



They do and are John. Both ineligible buyers and illegal sellers have
been caught and arrested. If you Google "illegal sales at gun show
arrests" it will return about 20,400,000 results for your reading pleasure.

CNN makes a big deal of buying three guns, but how often are the
arrests in the news? The arrests are what's newsworthy!


Well, if you look for them you'll find 'em. I found 20,400,000
references to them in .39 seconds. :-)

Obviously, not all are specific to arrests made but you get the idea.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 9:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:41 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC
wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times
doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's
very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have
questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report"
as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as
"evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the
arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why
their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a
crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.

The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to
purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background
checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy.

It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did).

Is it not a crime to entice someone to commit a crime?


They didn't. They were demonstrating how easy it is for anyone to
purchase guns.





Ok, got it....

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/14 9:56 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:10:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:44 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC
wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times
doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but
it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have
questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report"
as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as
"evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the
arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why
their
images are blurred.


If this is as common as depicted, why has BATF not put a few
undercover folks in there and sent some sellers to jail? That would
surely make the news. Might even help the problem of too many guns out
there.



They do and are John. Both ineligible buyers and illegal sellers have
been caught and arrested. If you Google "illegal sales at gun show
arrests" it will return about 20,400,000 results for your reading
pleasure.

CNN makes a big deal of buying three guns, but how often are the
arrests in the news? The arrests are what's newsworthy!


Well, if you look for them you'll find 'em. I found 20,400,000
references to them in .39 seconds. :-)

Obviously, not all are specific to arrests made but you get the idea.



Dealing with these morons is like being a third-grade teacher and trying
to teach Johnny how to read when Johnny has ADD.



--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:44:58 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.


If this is as common as depicted, why has BATF not put a few
undercover folks in there and sent some sellers to jail? That would
surely make the news. Might even help the problem of too many guns out
there.

These people would rather have the issue than an arrest. If they
followed through and had these people arrested they would not be able
to say it was still going on. They had to scour gun shows in several
states before they found a guy who would sell then guns in illegal
sale. Where are all the people who said "no way"?



You obviously didn't pay much attention to the report or video.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:21:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.

The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to
purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background
checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy.

It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did).

The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non
resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state
line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him
the money) he is also a straw purchaser.
That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns.

Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail.

CNN didn't say that did they?




Good freakin' grief Greg.

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:21:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report" as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.

The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to
purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background
checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy.

It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did).

The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non
resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state
line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him
the money) he is also a straw purchaser.
That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns.

Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail.

CNN didn't say that did they?



That's kind of what I was thinking.... with my tin hat and all :) Either
that or the whole sale was actors and fake guns... but no news agency
would do that :O

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/14 11:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:44:58 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but it's
very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have
questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report"
as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as "evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why
their
images are blurred.


If this is as common as depicted, why has BATF not put a few
undercover folks in there and sent some sellers to jail? That would
surely make the news. Might even help the problem of too many guns out
there.

These people would rather have the issue than an arrest. If they
followed through and had these people arrested they would not be able
to say it was still going on. They had to scour gun shows in several
states before they found a guy who would sell then guns in illegal
sale. Where are all the people who said "no way"?



You obviously didn't pay much attention to the report or video.

no shortage of hits on "gun show loophole."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b-ztawuh98

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...Unanimous-Vote

many hits for virginia...here is one:

http://tinyurl.com/mywfmo6




--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

The gun thread
 

On 11/5/14 11:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:21:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 9:05 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 12:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:41 -0500, KC
wrote:




I doubt it... Could be that they fudged the circumstances or edited
though. CNN and even more MSNBC have been caught several times
doing
things like that.. I am not saying this story is fudged, but
it's very
possible if nobody ever really got busted.

I think that if this was a real news story, they would have
questioned
the sellers after the sale. I wonder why they didn't.
By fuzzing the faces and not addressing it any further, even to the
point of saying the seller refused an interview, they make this look
pretty hokey.
I agree that if this really happened the way they presented it, laws
were broken. My first question is where does the producer live? They
attempted to buy guns in a couple of states and the transactions on
tape were in Tennessee. I bet the producer lives in Georgia. (CNN is
based in Atlanta)
When BATF starts rounding up the criminals, they have to start with
the guy who taped his crime.


Well, can we for the purpose of this discussion view this "report"
as a
hypothetical but not proven to be real yet? Of course that kills the
perspective of those in the discussion riding on this as
"evidence"...


The role of journalism in a report like this isn't to effect the
arrest
or apprehension of those breaking the law. It is to expose the law
breaking.

Journalists enjoy a privilege called "confidentiality of sources" and
are not required to identify the people in the report. That's why
their
images are blurred.




They are still not allowed to commit or participate knowingly in a
crime...


What crime did the show's producer commit? All he did was buy three
handguns and a rifle. Private sale, so no background check is required.

What was illegal, according to the report, is that the sellers were
supposed to confirm the ID of the purchaser to ensure he was a state
resident.

The show's intent was to demonstrate how *easy* it is for anyone to
purchase a firearm ... in this case several ... with no background
checks and not even a check to ensure the buyer was entitled to buy.

It wasn't to expose law breaking (although it did).

The producer committed at least 2 crimes. He purchased a gun as a non
resident, then he carried that illegally purchased gun across a state
line. Since he was purchasing it for CNN, not himself, (CNN gave him
the money) he is also a straw purchaser.
That is 3 federal crimes. ... three counts each for 3 guns.

Up to $900,000 fine and 90 years in jail.

CNN didn't say that did they?




Good freakin' grief Greg.



Heheheh... told you!



--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer