[Poco Loco]

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.)

[Califbill]

"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.

[Mr. Luddite]

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?

[Poco Loco]

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'.

[KC]

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.

[Califbill]

"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.

[KC]

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"...

[Mr. Luddite]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Poco Loco]

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.