Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31   Report Post  
Old August 13th 19, 11:39 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,508
Default No mental illness here!

On 8/13/19 5:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/13/2019 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser
Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,

wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: An article from NBC News
says: "Experts, however, have

said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a
higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to
note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness
are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent
crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with

people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be
emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive
rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon
and
kill multiple, random people.¬* They are mentally ill.
The APA is clueless.¬* It sounds like they just want to
protect their income stream. I have been saying this is
the position of mental health professionals for years. They
think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will

become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It
is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors
want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to
identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue
preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting
the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.
Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all

gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good
as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws
should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health
professionals to alert law enforcement officials
ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.¬* This
shouldbe included in the background

check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is
similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that
allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care
officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic
remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in
backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by
AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun,
more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor
law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the
gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating
around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded
things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number
we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes,
having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't
usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.

Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys
in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work'
involved at all.

You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she
breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal
for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.

Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used
or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The
remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for
about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends
have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods
stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were
in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate


Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!

Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.

Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know
where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each
year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to
the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass
10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf


The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file",¬* in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)




¬* PROHIBITION RELATING To¬*¬* ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH¬*¬* RESPECT¬*¬* TO¬*¬* FIREARMS.‚ÄĒNO¬* department,¬*¬* agency,¬*¬* officer,
or employee of the United States may‚ÄĒ (1)¬* require¬* that¬* any¬* record
or¬* portion¬* thereof¬* generated¬* by¬* the¬* system¬* established¬* under
this¬* section¬* be¬* recorded¬* at¬* or¬* transferred¬* to¬* a¬* facility
owned,¬* managed,¬* or¬* controlled¬* by¬* the¬* United¬* States¬* or¬* any
State¬* or¬* political¬* subdivision¬* thereof;¬* or (2)¬* use¬* the¬* system
established¬* under¬* this¬* section¬* to¬* estab-lish¬* any system¬* for the
registration¬* of¬* firearms,¬* firearm¬* owners,¬* or¬*¬* firearm
transactions¬*¬* or¬* dispositions,¬*¬* except¬* with¬*¬* respect¬*¬* to
persons,¬* prohibited¬* by¬* section¬* 922¬* (g)¬* or¬* (n)¬* of¬* title¬*¬* 18,
United¬* States¬*¬* Code¬* or¬* State¬* law,¬*¬* from¬* receiving¬* a¬*¬* firearm,


When you read this carefully, it prohibits *Federal* departments,
agencies, officer or employees to require a registration system,
including a state system.


It doesn't prohibit a *state* from establishing a registration system
however.¬*¬* Massachusetts maintains one.¬* They have a record of every
gun purchased in the state, who the purchaser is, what type of firearm
and when purchased.¬* Also maintains a registration of who holds
permits and what type.¬* Firearm owners are also required to report
transfer of ownership or sale which can be done on-line and the
report must indicate seller, buyer, addresses, firearm type and serial
number and the seller and buyer's permit numbers.



Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe that's why Massachusetts has the
lowest murder death rate for firearms per 100,000 occupants than any
other state, and a rate that is one third of that of the USA as a whole.

  #32   Report Post  
Old August 13th 19, 11:58 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 17:27:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/13/2019 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have

said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American

Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a

weapon
and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they

will
become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the

background
check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.

Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.

You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.

Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate

Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!

Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.

Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass 10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf


The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file", in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)




PROHIBITION RELATING To ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.‚ÄĒNO department, agency, officer,
or employee of the United States may‚ÄĒ (1) require that any record
or portion thereof generated by the system established under
this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility
owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system
established under this section to estab-lish any system for the
registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions, except with respect to
persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm,


When you read this carefully, it prohibits *Federal* departments,
agencies, officer or employees to require a registration system,
including a state system.


It doesn't prohibit a *state* from establishing a registration system
however. Massachusetts maintains one. They have a record of every
gun purchased in the state, who the purchaser is, what type of firearm
and when purchased. Also maintains a registration of who holds
permits and what type. Firearm owners are also required to report
transfer of ownership or sale which can be done on-line and the
report must indicate seller, buyer, addresses, firearm type and serial
number and the seller and buyer's permit numbers.


The state may do this but most don't. If a gun is used somewhere other
than the last state that registered it, you still hit a dead end. The
law I cited said the state is not allowed to use federally collected
information, like the instant check.
If you sell a gun to John, arrange the transfer through FFLs and he
gets the gun from a Virginia dealer, a trace is a paper chase and if
they start in Virginia it might not be that easy to find your way back
to Massachusetts. That is particularly true if the original sale of
that gun happened in Jupiter.
  #33   Report Post  
Old August 14th 19, 12:08 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:39:31 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/13/19 5:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/13/2019 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser
Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,

wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: An article from NBC News
says: "Experts, however, have
said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a
higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to
note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness
are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent
crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with
people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be
emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive
rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon
and
kill multiple, random people.¬* They are mentally ill.
The APA is clueless.¬* It sounds like they just want to
protect their income stream. I have been saying this is
the position of mental health professionals for years. They
think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will
become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It
is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors
want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to
identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue
preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting
the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.
Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good
as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws
should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health
professionals to alert law enforcement officials
ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.¬* This
shouldbe included in the background
check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is
similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that
allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care
officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic
remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in
backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by
AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun,
more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor
law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the
gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating
around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded
things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number
we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes,
having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't
usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.

Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys
in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work'
involved at all.

You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she
breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal
for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.

Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used
or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The
remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for
about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends
have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods
stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were
in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate


Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!

Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.

Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know
where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each
year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to
the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass
10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf


The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file",¬* in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)




¬* PROHIBITION RELATING To¬*¬* ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH¬*¬* RESPECT¬*¬* TO¬*¬* FIREARMS.‚ÄĒNO¬* department,¬*¬* agency,¬*¬* officer,
or employee of the United States may‚ÄĒ (1)¬* require¬* that¬* any¬* record
or¬* portion¬* thereof¬* generated¬* by¬* the¬* system¬* established¬* under
this¬* section¬* be¬* recorded¬* at¬* or¬* transferred¬* to¬* a¬* facility
owned,¬* managed,¬* or¬* controlled¬* by¬* the¬* United¬* States¬* or¬* any
State¬* or¬* political¬* subdivision¬* thereof;¬* or (2)¬* use¬* the¬* system
established¬* under¬* this¬* section¬* to¬* estab-lish¬* any system¬* for the
registration¬* of¬* firearms,¬* firearm¬* owners,¬* or¬*¬* firearm
transactions¬*¬* or¬* dispositions,¬*¬* except¬* with¬*¬* respect¬*¬* to
persons,¬* prohibited¬* by¬* section¬* 922¬* (g)¬* or¬* (n)¬* of¬* title¬*¬* 18,
United¬* States¬*¬* Code¬* or¬* State¬* law,¬*¬* from¬* receiving¬* a¬*¬* firearm,


When you read this carefully, it prohibits *Federal* departments,
agencies, officer or employees to require a registration system,
including a state system.


It doesn't prohibit a *state* from establishing a registration system
however.¬*¬* Massachusetts maintains one.¬* They have a record of every
gun purchased in the state, who the purchaser is, what type of firearm
and when purchased.¬* Also maintains a registration of who holds
permits and what type.¬* Firearm owners are also required to report
transfer of ownership or sale which can be done on-line and the
report must indicate seller, buyer, addresses, firearm type and serial
number and the seller and buyer's permit numbers.



Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe that's why Massachusetts has the
lowest murder death rate for firearms per 100,000 occupants than any
other state, and a rate that is one third of that of the USA as a whole.


Yeah there are no basic cultural differences there at all.
  #34   Report Post  
Old August 14th 19, 12:26 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,565
Default No mental illness here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:55:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have

said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon
and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they will

become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background

check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.

Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.

You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.

Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate

Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!

Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.


Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass 10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf


The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file", in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)

PROHIBITION RELATING To ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.óNO department, agency, officer,
or employee of the United States mayó (1) require that any record
or portion thereof generated by the system established under
this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility
owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system
established under this section to estab-lish any system for the
registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions, except with respect to
persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm,


Fine. So you just established how easy it is for Keisha to buy the gun and give it to Jamal.
  #35   Report Post  
Old August 14th 19, 12:28 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,565
Default No mental illness here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:08:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:39:31 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/13/19 5:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/13/2019 4:55 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser
Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,

wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: An article from NBC News
says: "Experts, however, have
said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a
higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to
note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness
are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent
crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with
people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be
emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive
rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon
and
kill multiple, random people.* They are mentally ill.
The APA is clueless.* It sounds like they just want to
protect their income stream. I have been saying this is
the position of mental health professionals for years. They
think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will
become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It
is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors
want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to
identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue
preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting
the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.
Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good
as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws
should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health
professionals to alert law enforcement officials
ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This
shouldbe included in the background
check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is
similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that
allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care
officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic
remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in
backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by
AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun,
more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor
law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the
gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating
around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded
things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number
we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes,
having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't
usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.

Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys
in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work'
involved at all.

You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she
breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal
for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.

Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used
or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The
remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for
about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends
have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods
stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were
in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate


Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!

Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.

Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know
where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each
year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to
the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass
10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf


The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file",* in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)



* PROHIBITION RELATING To** ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH** RESPECT** TO** FIREARMS.óNO* department,** agency,** officer,
or employee of the United States mayó (1)* require* that* any* record
or* portion* thereof* generated* by* the* system* established* under
this* section* be* recorded* at* or* transferred* to* a* facility
owned,* managed,* or* controlled* by* the* United* States* or* any
State* or* political* subdivision* thereof;* or (2)* use* the* system
established* under* this* section* to* estab-lish* any system* for the
registration* of* firearms,* firearm* owners,* or** firearm
transactions** or* dispositions,** except* with** respect** to
persons,* prohibited* by* section* 922* (g)* or* (n)* of* title** 18,
United* States** Code* or* State* law,** from* receiving* a** firearm,


When you read this carefully, it prohibits *Federal* departments,
agencies, officer or employees to require a registration system,
including a state system.


It doesn't prohibit a *state* from establishing a registration system
however.** Massachusetts maintains one.* They have a record of every
gun purchased in the state, who the purchaser is, what type of firearm
and when purchased.* Also maintains a registration of who holds
permits and what type.* Firearm owners are also required to report
transfer of ownership or sale which can be done on-line and the
report must indicate seller, buyer, addresses, firearm type and serial
number and the seller and buyer's permit numbers.



Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe that's why Massachusetts has the
lowest murder death rate for firearms per 100,000 occupants than any
other state, and a rate that is one third of that of the USA as a whole.


Yeah there are no basic cultural differences there at all.


LOL! You damn racist, you!


  #36   Report Post  
Old August 14th 19, 12:53 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 6
Default No mental illness here!

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:08:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:39:31 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/13/19 5:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/13/2019 4:55 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser
Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,

wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: An article from NBC News
says: "Experts, however, have
said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a
higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to
note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness
are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent
crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with
people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be
emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive
rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon
and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill.
The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to
protect their income stream. I have been saying this is
the position of mental health professionals for years. They
think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will
become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It
is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors
want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to
identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue
preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting
the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.
Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good
as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws
should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health
professionals to alert law enforcement officials
ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This
shouldbe included in the background
check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is
similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that
allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care
officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic
remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in
backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by
AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun,
more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor
law-abiding citizens.
Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?
Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the
gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!
That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating
around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded
things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number
we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes,
having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't
usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.
Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys
in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work'
involved at all.
You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she
breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal
for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.
Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used
or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The
remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for
about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends
have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods
stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were
in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate


Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!
Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.
Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know
where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each
year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to
the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass
10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf

The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file", in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)

PROHIBITION RELATING To ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.‚ÄĒNO department, agency, officer,
or employee of the United States may‚ÄĒ (1) require that any record
or portion thereof generated by the system established under
this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility
owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system
established under this section to estab-lish any system for the
registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions, except with respect to
persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm,

When you read this carefully, it prohibits *Federal* departments,
agencies, officer or employees to require a registration system,
including a state system.


It doesn't prohibit a *state* from establishing a registration system
however. Massachusetts maintains one. They have a record of every
gun purchased in the state, who the purchaser is, what type of firearm
and when purchased. Also maintains a registration of who holds
permits and what type. Firearm owners are also required to report
transfer of ownership or sale which can be done on-line and the
report must indicate seller, buyer, addresses, firearm type and serial
number and the seller and buyer's permit numbers.


Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe that's why Massachusetts has the
lowest murder death rate for firearms per 100,000 occupants than any
other state, and a rate that is one third of that of the USA as a whole.

Yeah there are no basic cultural differences there at all.

LOL! You damn racist, you!


There is racism and there is reality based on facts and hard data.
  #37   Report Post  
Old August 14th 19, 01:29 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:26:54 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:55:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have

said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American

Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a

weapon
and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they

will
become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background

check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.

Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.

You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.

Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate

Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!

Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.

Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass 10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf


The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file", in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)

PROHIBITION RELATING To ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.‚ÄĒNO department, agency, officer,
or employee of the United States may‚ÄĒ (1) require that any record
or portion thereof generated by the system established under
this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility
owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system
established under this section to estab-lish any system for the
registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions, except with respect to
persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm,


Fine. So you just established how easy it is for Keisha to buy the gun and give it to Jamal.


Kiesha could always buy a gun and give it to Jamal but if Kiesha
bought a NEW gun, there is a paper trail straight to her door. That
is why it would be better for Jamal to just buy a used gun on the
street.

Actually the more I think about the flaws in that report the more I
wonder about the validity of the claims. The ATF records stop at the
first FFL after the manufacturer so if a wholesaler in Indiana bought
50 Glocks and sold a couple of them to a dealer in down town Chicago,
that ATF trace would still stop in Indiana. Certainly someone could go
to the wholesaler, look at his bound book and get to the Chicago FFL
that way but I doubt that happened in a study intending to prove the
guns came from somewhere else.

Like I said originally, these paper chases usually only happen in high
profile killings, not when Jamal gets ****ed at Kiesha for sleeping
with Jay Jay and shoots her. The gun would trace to wholesaler in Gary
and the chase stops.
  #38   Report Post  
Old August 14th 19, 10:58 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,565
Default No mental illness here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:53:47 -0400, Alex wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:08:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:39:31 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/13/19 5:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/13/2019 4:55 PM,
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser
Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,

wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: An article from NBC News
says: "Experts, however, have
said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a
higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to
note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness
are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent
crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with
people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be
emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive
rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon
and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill.
The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to
protect their income stream. I have been saying this is
the position of mental health professionals for years. They
think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will
become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It
is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors
want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to
identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue
preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting
the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.
Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good
as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws
should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health
professionals to alert law enforcement officials
ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This
shouldbe included in the background
check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is
similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that
allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care
officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic
remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in
backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by
AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun,
more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor
law-abiding citizens.
Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?
Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the
gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!
That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating
around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded
things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number
we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes,
having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't
usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.
Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys
in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work'
involved at all.
You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she
breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal
for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.
Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used
or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The
remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for
about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends
have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods
stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were
in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate


Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!
Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.
Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know
where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each
year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to
the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass
10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf

The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file", in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)

PROHIBITION RELATING To ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.óNO department, agency, officer,
or employee of the United States mayó (1) require that any record
or portion thereof generated by the system established under
this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility
owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system
established under this section to estab-lish any system for the
registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions, except with respect to
persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm,

When you read this carefully, it prohibits *Federal* departments,
agencies, officer or employees to require a registration system,
including a state system.


It doesn't prohibit a *state* from establishing a registration system
however. Massachusetts maintains one. They have a record of every
gun purchased in the state, who the purchaser is, what type of firearm
and when purchased. Also maintains a registration of who holds
permits and what type. Firearm owners are also required to report
transfer of ownership or sale which can be done on-line and the
report must indicate seller, buyer, addresses, firearm type and serial
number and the seller and buyer's permit numbers.


Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe that's why Massachusetts has the
lowest murder death rate for firearms per 100,000 occupants than any
other state, and a rate that is one third of that of the USA as a whole.
Yeah there are no basic cultural differences there at all.

LOL! You damn racist, you!


There is racism and there is reality based on facts and hard data.


Amen!

Shame Harry, et al, don't know the difference.
  #39   Report Post  
Old August 14th 19, 11:03 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,565
Default No mental illness here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 20:29:22 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:26:54 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:55:17 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have
said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American

Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a

weapon
and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they

will
become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background
check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.

Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.

You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.

Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate

Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!

Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.

Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass 10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf

The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file", in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)

PROHIBITION RELATING To ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.óNO department, agency, officer,
or employee of the United States mayó (1) require that any record
or portion thereof generated by the system established under
this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility
owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system
established under this section to estab-lish any system for the
registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions, except with respect to
persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm,


Fine. So you just established how easy it is for Keisha to buy the gun and give it to Jamal.


Kiesha could always buy a gun and give it to Jamal but if Kiesha
bought a NEW gun, there is a paper trail straight to her door. That
is why it would be better for Jamal to just buy a used gun on the
street.

That's why Kiesha reports the gun as stolen. Damn, we are going in a big circle here.

Actually the more I think about the flaws in that report the more I
wonder about the validity of the claims. The ATF records stop at the
first FFL after the manufacturer so if a wholesaler in Indiana bought
50 Glocks and sold a couple of them to a dealer in down town Chicago,
that ATF trace would still stop in Indiana. Certainly someone could go
to the wholesaler, look at his bound book and get to the Chicago FFL
that way but I doubt that happened in a study intending to prove the
guns came from somewhere else.

Like I said originally, these paper chases usually only happen in high
profile killings, not when Jamal gets ****ed at Kiesha for sleeping
with Jay Jay and shoots her. The gun would trace to wholesaler in Gary
and the chase stops.


What flaws? What dealers in downtown Chicago? "...intending to prove the guns came from somewhere
else?" Where did that 'intent' come from?

Again, you proved my point - if the chase stops, as *you* say, then both Keisha and Jamal are off
the hook and Jamal has a gun.
  #40   Report Post  
Old August 14th 19, 03:19 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 06:03:28 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 20:29:22 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:26:54 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:55:17 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:58:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:20:19 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:15:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:01:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however,

have
said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American

Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a

weapon
and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they

will
become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There

are
other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for

all
gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the

background
check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment.
Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.

Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.

You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.

Keisha can go right outside Chicago and buy the gun in Illinois.

"According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered
in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from
states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons,
followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the
past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10
source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nd-murder-rate

Someone is going to Indiana to buy guns!

Probably the legal owner who had it stolen. I also wonder what
percentage of crime guns were actually traced. It is very rare to hear
about stolen guns being returned to the owner. I have never heard of
it happening but I suppose it might if the gun was recovered as part
of a stolen property investigation.

Go read the article. A hell of a lot of guns are traced. Don't know where the 'stolen guns returned
to owner' came from. That had nothing to do with the discussion.

"From 2013 to 2016, almost 7,000 illegal guns were recovered each year in Chicago, according to the
city's Gun Trace Report . In 2017, the total was 7,932, according to the Chicago police. As of Dec.
6, the total for 2018 was 8,309, and police say that could surpass 10,000 by year's end."

Here's the actual report, if you're interested:

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...er/GTR2017.pdf

The "back to owner" was just a question about how good this actual
trace is. There are computer records of every NEW gun delivered to a
dealer but after that it is a paper chase and I don't believe the cops
do that chase unless a president was shot or something. When Harry
took his gun to the FFL to transfer it to his good fella there was a
paper record (4473) made and it should be in the FFL's "Bound Book"
but the 4473 does not get entered into any ATF data base or even
mailed off to be put in a file cabinet in DC so if that gun does get
traced the only person who will pop is the original purchaser and only
if they go to that first dealer and inspect his records.
The original purchaser would have to say "I sold it to X and dealer Y
should still have that form on file", in states with universal
background checks.
If the original purchaser is dead or just forgot who he sold the gun
to, the trail goes cold.

In these active shooter cases where the gun was purchased new and
never resold, it can be fairly easily traced with a quick peek at the
bound book or even a phone call to the dealer but after that it will
usually be a dead end unless the original dealer just happens to have
that subsequent transfer in his bound book.

OTOH if the gun was reported stolen, there is a record, on file in
NCIC and the local police agency so there is a good trail back to the
victim of the theft. Hence, if they are really doing anything but a
quick check of the ATF online database of new gun transfers from
manufacturers to the first FFL, the owner should get his gun back. How
often does that happen?

OK then you say "But what about that instant check, wasn't that
recorded"?
Nope, by federal law (Brady Bill)

PROHIBITION RELATING To ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.‚ÄĒNO department, agency, officer,
or employee of the United States may‚ÄĒ (1) require that any record
or portion thereof generated by the system established under
this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility
owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system
established under this section to estab-lish any system for the
registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions, except with respect to
persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm,

Fine. So you just established how easy it is for Keisha to buy the gun and give it to Jamal.


Kiesha could always buy a gun and give it to Jamal but if Kiesha
bought a NEW gun, there is a paper trail straight to her door. That
is why it would be better for Jamal to just buy a used gun on the
street.

That's why Kiesha reports the gun as stolen. Damn, we are going in a big circle here.

Actually the more I think about the flaws in that report the more I
wonder about the validity of the claims. The ATF records stop at the
first FFL after the manufacturer so if a wholesaler in Indiana bought
50 Glocks and sold a couple of them to a dealer in down town Chicago,
that ATF trace would still stop in Indiana. Certainly someone could go
to the wholesaler, look at his bound book and get to the Chicago FFL
that way but I doubt that happened in a study intending to prove the
guns came from somewhere else.

Like I said originally, these paper chases usually only happen in high
profile killings, not when Jamal gets ****ed at Kiesha for sleeping
with Jay Jay and shoots her. The gun would trace to wholesaler in Gary
and the chase stops.


What flaws? What dealers in downtown Chicago? "...intending to prove the guns came from somewhere
else?" Where did that 'intent' come from?

Again, you proved my point - if the chase stops, as *you* say, then both Keisha and Jamal are off
the hook and Jamal has a gun.


The computer chase stops at the first FFL to handle that gun. If the
CPD wants to go to Gary and look at that dealer's books they can find
Kiesha but I doubt they try that hard. It is too easy to just say the
gun came from out of state. even if the Indiana FFL sold it to an
Illinois FFL.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CNN on Shooter Mental Health John H.[_5_] General 27 October 8th 15 09:18 PM
Higher rate of mental illness among army enlistees... F.O.A.D. General 8 March 4th 14 03:53 PM
Global Warming Causes Psychiatric Illness! Mike[_9_] ASA 0 July 9th 08 07:14 PM
Diving and mental disorders Bob Crantz ASA 0 February 11th 07 02:41 AM
Rob's Mental problems Joe ASA 0 June 4th 06 02:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017