Islamic State magazine steers followers to U.S. gun shows for ‘easy’ access to weapons

[hdwhit]

Hanzo581 wrote:
what I'm saying is there is little to no way to punish the straw purchaser since you'd have to prove they knowingly sold to a prohibited person.

P: Mr. D is this your signature on this Form 4473?
D: Yes.
P: Mr. D did you mark the box on line 11a. Yes?
D: Yes.
P: Mr. D did you then take possession of the firearm?
D: Yes.
P: Mr. D and did you then exit the gun store and immediately turn it over to Mr. S who paid you $500 in cash?
D: Yes.
P: The Prosecution rests.

It's not much more than that to establish that Mr. D falsely answered question 11a and that's all that's necessary for him to be guilty of a federal felong that will keep him from ever lawfully buying another gun.

Of course Mr. D will say that he went in to the store intending to buy a gun for himself which he did for $300 and that as soon as he got outside the store, Mr. S liked it so much that he offered to buy it from him for $500 so Mr. D figured he'd cash in on Mr. S's sudden desire to overpay for the gun. And, who knows, a jury might actually buy it. But I wouldn't bet my mortgage payment on it.

 

[Hanzo581]

Do some research on Science Daily and you will find that they have a big left wing bent and are definitely anti-gun.

There were several links to the same studies, I just picked one. Are you saying the studies in the actual article were falsified or did you not read the article as soon as you saw it was science daily?

 

[Hanzo581]

P: Mr. D is this your signature on this Form 4473?
D: Yes.
P: Mr. D did you mark the box on line 11a. Yes?
D: Yes.
P: Mr. D did you then take possession of the firearm?
D: Yes.
P: Mr. D and did you then exit the gun store and immediately turn it over to Mr. S who paid you $500 in cash?
D: Yes.
P: The Prosecution rests.

It's not much more than that to establish that Mr. D falsely answered question 11a and that's all that's necessary for him to be guilty of a federal felong that will keep him from ever lawfully buying another gun.

Of course Mr. D will say that he went in to the store intending to buy a gun for himself which he did for $300 and that as soon as he got outside the store, Mr. S liked it so much that he offered to buy it from him for $500 so Mr. D figured he'd cash in on Mr. S's sudden desire to overpay for the gun. And, who knows, a jury might actually buy it. But I wouldn't bet my mortgage payment on it.

Meh, so I wait a day and say I didn't like the gun. Seriously, if you want to pretend it doesn't happen daily that's fine.

 

[George Dickel]

There were several links to the same studies, I just picked one. Are you saying the studies in the actual article were falsified or did you not read the article as soon as you saw it was science daily?

Read the article and I did a search on gun articles by them and couldn't find one that was pro-gun. They also advocate left wing positions on other topics besides guns.

 

[Hanzo581]

Read the article and I did a search on gun articles by them and couldn't find one that was pro-gun. They also advocate left wing positions on other topics besides guns.

Ok, just for you I'll take the time and bypass the messenger and take you right to the study.

https://sanford.duke.edu/articles/c...l-connections-studies-find-prof-philip-j-cook

 

[George Dickel]

Meh, so I wait a day and say I didn't like the gun. Seriously, if you want to pretend it doesn't happen daily that's fine.

As I stated in my post about straw purchasers, a UBC isn't going to do anything to prevent a straw purchaser with no criminal record from buying a gun from an private seller for a prohibited person. What don't you understand about that?

 

[DeepSouth]

Yes, my aim would be the straw purchaser. Right now, "Guy A" can legally walk in and buy a gun...paperwork, background check etc. Then walk about and sell it to "Guy B" who happens to be prohibited. Let's say that gun is then used in a crime, they have to prove that Guy A knew they were selling to a prohibited person..which isn't easy. By putting another step in the system, requiring a background check between Guy A and B, you can at the very least charge Guy A, assuming he sold the gun to Guy B without going through the proper process.

If that's how criminals normally got their guns, and I don't believe it is, then what requiring background checks for every transaction would accomplish is drastically increasing the amount of stolen firearms.

The only way to keep guns out of criminals hands is to repeal the 2nd amendment, confiscate all guns that can be found, and then let the rest trickle in through criminal arrests and such over the next 100-150 years... that'll come close to doing it.


Arguably one "benefit" of criminals having "easy access to guns" is that they don't have to break into my house to get a new one.

 

[barnbwt]

This is a fundamental problem with your generation, you refuse to acknowledge change. People, and society for that matter, are inherently different than they were 50+ years ago.

You're got-damn right we're different; gun owners fifty years ago were far more tolerant of infringements rapidly piling up on every aspect of their lives, and even more broadly across the nation, while pursuing criminally short-sighted social policies that are exploding before us today. Gun control being but one of many. Having damn near succumbed to their venom in the 90's, our side is now justifiably shy of anything that resembles something coming from those snakes' mouths, or glinting in their slitted eyes.

On the other hand, no, no we're not "inherently different" as human animals than we were fifty years ago. Logic and reasoning have not really changed, especially not at the levels where decisions get made (as opposed to the hapless peasants or citizens bound to obey them). Every generations' hucksters come along with that *exact same* song and dance, and con the *exact same* gullible sots into surrendering their liberty for the *exact same* empty promises the *exact same* way. A wise quote from a now also bygone era "totally different" from our own; "In times like these it helps to recall there have always been times like these" --Paul Harvey

Hell, the oldest written text & fabels we have available to us record primitive "civilized betters" plotting to take the liberty of their fellow man under the auspices of benevolence. Yup, we're so different today from the power players, tyrants, and ignorant rubes of yesteryear. Stalin was such a different flavor from Peter the Great in conquering & enslaving the surrounding weaker states in the name of an ideology. Germany is so different today than from the past, in how it clumps up with neighboring powers then takes control of them from the inside in an attempt to conquer Europe. Time & events aren't cyclical, but mankind is fairly predictable & consistent over a long enough timeline.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Yes, my aim would be the straw purchaser. Right now, "Guy A" can legally walk in and buy a gun...paperwork, background check etc. Then walk about and sell it to "Guy B" who happens to be prohibited. Let's say that gun is then used in a crime, they have to prove that Guy A knew they were selling to a prohibited person..which isn't easy. By putting another step in the system, requiring a background check between Guy A and B, you can at the very least charge Guy A, assuming he sold the gun to Guy B without going through the proper process.

So...what you propose wouldn't actually stop any crime at all. And what you seek is in reality a means to lower the threshold of evidence required to take a gun seller's freedom, for the subsequent actions of *anyone* he would choose to sell a gun to. Gotcha. Oh, and that's assuming the additional cost/hassle burden of a BCG isn't simply a convenient burden meant to discourage an undesirable behavior, namely lawful firearms commerce (or would you call it 'proliferation?')

TCB

 

[George Dickel]

Ok, just for you I'll take the time and bypass the messenger and take you right to the study.

https://sanford.duke.edu/articles/c...l-connections-studies-find-prof-philip-j-cook

Really, you expect a pro-gun study by current day universities that are bastions of liberal political correctness where conservative dissent is prohibited and ridiculed?

 

[Hanzo581]

As I stated in my post about straw purchasers, a UBC isn't going to do anything to prevent a straw purchaser with no criminal record from buying a gun from an private seller for a prohibited person. What don't you understand about that?

I feel like we're running in circles here, I've posted this several times. This is about prosecuting the straw purchaser not prevention. If I buy a gun for my felon buddy and sell it to him there is nothing they can do to me. Again, talking about a one off, not someone whose business is trafficking. They have to prove I knowingly sold to a prohibited person. Whereas if a background check was required for all transactions, I may still sell it to my buddy, but now there is verifiable proof I sold him the gun without going through the proper procedure. So if he is caught with it, he's in trouble and so am I.

If that's how criminals normally got their guns, and I don't believe it is, then what requiring background checks for every transaction would accomplish is drastically increasing the amount of stolen firearms.

The only way to keep guns out of criminals hands is to repeal the 2nd amendment, confiscate all guns that can be found, and then let the rest trickle in through criminal arrests and such over the next 100-150 years... that'll come close to doing it.

Arguably one "benefit" of criminals having "easy access to guns" is that they don't have to break into my house to get a new one.

Very interesting view. Don't try to stop straw purchases otherwise they will steal more? Can't say I've ever heard that one before.

 

[jdc1244]

Background checks are a useless infringement of freedom, and a violation of the Second Amendment.

Actually not.

This is subjective opinion, not a fact of law.

Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, are not an infringement on freedom, and in no way a violation of the Second Amendment until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Everyone’s entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts of law.

 

[Hanzo581]

Really, you expect a pro-gun study by current day universities that are bastions of liberal political correctness where conservative dissent is prohibited and ridiculed?

So the studies in the prisons were also falsified? They changed the inmates answers?

 

[barnbwt]

Straw purchases are way more common than you are led to believe.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150916162916.htm

And yes, some straw purchasers are caught, mainly the ones that make it their business. But the career purchasers aren't the majority.

I'm going to go out on a *very* short limb and guess that site, and the study published, are bought & paid for by anti-gun charties/think-tanks like so many other scientific research outlets & news aggregators. No, I'm not anti-intellectual, but I am also not blind to the rampant politicization in academia, particularly when it comes to politically controversial issues like gun control.

ETA: Whaddaya know...
"Philip J. Cook, a professor of public policy, economics and sociology at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy."
Five-second Google search:
-"The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know" --multiple Amazon reviews document systematic bias in his 'research' approach & findings
-"Gun Violence: The Real Costs" --even more critical reviews citing bias, even from anti-gun readers seeking validation
-"Underground Gun Markets" --an article about the exact thing he refutes in this later study
-"The Healthcare Costs of Gun Violence in Nevada" --this one showed up in a Bloomberg research catalog
-Multiple regular appearances in the Bloomberg/Soros backed 'news' outlets rife with biased anti-gun sentiment like The Trace, Media Matters, and so on

My "research" strongly suggests he's a highly biased and flawed researcher, if not an outright propaganda organ of the anti-gun set.

Besides, that study mainly shows that gun shows & private sellers are not the source of these weapons, but *family & acquaintances,* which is to say people who are probably aware of the legalities and choose to risk evading them regardless. Odd they don't spin the story as such a contradiction to their beloved 'gunshow loophole' though. A man who knows his ex-con brother hangs with dangerous thugs & wants him to have protection won't care about a BGC when it comes to giving him the means to self defense (yes, I'm also one of those guys who things disqualification itself is highly immoral). All your law accomplishes is adding the ability to prosecute the first guy for his brother's possession or a violent crime he did not commit or have any *hand* in. That in turn does nothing but further diminish the justification for law itself that is based in a harmful crime receiving suitable punishment.

TCB

 

[Sistema1927]

Hanzo, maybe it is time that you take my Dad's advice: "When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging."

 

[George Dickel]

Ok, just for you I'll take the time and bypass the messenger and take you right to the study.

https://sanford.duke.edu/articles/c...l-connections-studies-find-prof-philip-j-cook

So the studies in the prisons were also falsified? They changed the inmates answers?

They don't have to change the answers, only choose the answers that correspond to a predetermined outcome of the study. It's done all the time by the media, researchers, politicians, talk show hosts, kids who want to do what they say their friends are allowed to do, car salesmen, lawyers and everyone who has an agenda. Why is it that the information I have read obtained from interviews of numerous police depts. and prison's convicts show what I stated earlier? Good research uses multiple sources not just one like this study did using the city of Chicago.
.

 

[RPZ]

That is a quote to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

Trouble is it gets dangerously close to describing our Congress.

Yeah, its that "middle ground" that brought us gun control laws and continues to feed that process.

 

[George Dickel]

I feel like we're running in circles here, I've posted this several times. This is about prosecuting the straw purchaser not prevention. If I buy a gun for my felon buddy and sell it to him there is nothing they can do to me. Again, talking about a one off, not someone whose business is trafficking. They have to prove I knowingly sold to a prohibited person. Whereas if a background check was required for all transactions, I may still sell it to my buddy, but now there is verifiable proof I sold him the gun without going through the proper procedure. So if he is caught with it, he's in trouble and so am I.



Very interesting view. Don't try to stop straw purchases otherwise they will steal more? Can't say I've ever heard that one before.

 

[RPZ]

Actually not.

This is subjective opinion, not a fact of law.

Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, are not an infringement on freedom, and in no way a violation of the Second Amendment until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Everyone’s entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts of law.

It is an infringement, because any FREE man has a right to be armed. This is the way it was before the legislation in the 1960s.

 

[George Dickel]

I want qualify my statement that people/organizations use studies/research to show predetermined results. For 18 years I worked for the state maintaining a data base of information, providing reports and statistics based on that information that I entered into the data base. The data I provided was accurate as I didn't falsify anything, however the powers in charge cherry picked the data they wanted to prove their point. They didn't falsify data either, just published the numbers they wanted. This was under Republican and Democrat leadership and numerous successor department heads. My department wasn't the only one that provided cherry picked info for the media and other recipients.

 

[Hanzo581]

Hanzo, maybe it is time that you take my Dad's advice: "When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging."

Nah, I'm not in a hole, as I mentioned in my very first post in the thread I knew my position was unfavorable to say the least here, yet I still posted it. Perhaps you guys want to stay in the echo chamber but sometimes it's good to hear how others view things, even if you disagree.

 

[Hanzo581]

It is an infringement, because any FREE man has a right to be armed. This is the way it was before the legislation in the 1960s.

Perhaps one day the Supreme Court of the United States will agree, but today is not that day.

 

[RPZ]

And it's that way for a reason; change agents and their SCOTUS appointees. That's called a political coup d'etat, a subversion that demands counter action. Otherwise we have been conquered.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Should there be background checks for those wishing to exercise their first amendment rights also? It has been suggested before.
I prefer a free society with its inherent risks to the security of a police state.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Nah, I'm not in a hole, as I mentioned in my very first post in the thread I knew my position was unfavorable to say the least here, yet I still posted it. Perhaps you guys want to stay in the echo chamber but sometimes it's good to hear how others view things, even if you disagree.

Yet you have said nothing new and mostly shallow emotionalism. For instance, one of your earlier posts used the recidivism as an argument. Yet those stats depend on so many assumptions that are not rational. Consider, the analysis of recid usually points out people re-offend within one year but rarely say what the second crime is. Considering that most jurisdictions offenders are put on parole or probation for two years the second crime could be as minor as not paying the probation fee or not getting home on time. Liars, damn liars and statisticians, my friend, need to be taken with a grain of salt roughly the size of Mt Rushmore.