RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/26/2011 10:06:08 PM)

quote:

It is illegal for anyone knowingly to sell a firearm to a felon, the mentally ill, to someone known to want it to commit a crime, etc etc. People break the law in many many ways. The most common way for felons to obtain guns is to steal them.


Felons? You think they are the only one's who use guns? Was the idiot who shot the congresswoman a felon before he shot her?

Inside Gun Shows combines a review of existing research
with direct observations and photographic evidence. The data
were gathered at 78 gun shows in 19 states, most of them occurring
between 2005 and 2008.

Americans owned between 220 and 280 million guns in
2004, including at least 86 million handguns. We account for less
than 5% of the world’s population but 35% to 50% of all firearms
in civilian hands.

More than 360,000 violent crimes involving guns, including
an estimated 11,512 homicides, were committed in the United
States in 2007. American firearms now also figure prominently
in crimes committed elsewhere, particularly in Canada and
Mexico.

There is solid evidence, primarily from investigations of
illegal gun trafficking, that gun shows are an important source of
crime guns. But less than 2% of felons incarcerated for crimes
involving guns acquired those guns themselves at gun shows.
This poses a seeming paradox: How can gun shows be an important
source of crime guns if criminals get their guns elsewhere?

Modern gun commerce operates under the terms of the
Gun Control Act of 1968. Those engaged in the business of selling
guns must obtain federal licenses and follow specified procedures.
Private parties who claim not to sell guns as a business are
exempt. As a result, the United States has two very different systems
of gun commerce that operate in parallel. At gun shows,
they can operate literally side by side.

In order to sell a gun to you, whether at a gun show or
elsewhere, a licensed retailer such as a gun dealer or pawnbroker
must see your identification. He must have you complete a
lengthy Firearms Transaction Record on which you certify, under
penalty of perjury, that you are buying the gun for yourself and
that you are not prohibited from owning it. He must submit your
identifying information for a background check and keep a record
of your purchase.

But a private party, such as an unlicensed vendor or individual
attendee at a gun show, can sell you that same gun—or as
many guns as you want—and none of these federal safeguards
will be in place. Private party gun sellers are not required to ask
for your identification. They cannot initiate a background check.
There are no forms for you to fill out, and no records need be
kept.

Undocumented private party transactions account for as
many as 40% of all gun sales. They are quick and convenient,
and their anonymity will attract those who put privacy at a premium.
But these same attributes make them the principal option
for a felon or other prohibited person. The key is that it is only
illegal for a seller to participate in a prohibited gun sale if he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that he is doing so. The
matter is easily finessed. As one gun seller said while contemplating
a possibly illegal handgun sale, "Of course, if I don't ask,
nobody knows."

Seventeen states regulate at least some sales by private
parties. In 2008 alone, 9.9 million background checks were conducted
under the provisions of federal or state law, 147,000 of
which led to denials. Most of these denials resulted from prior
convictions or indictments for serious crimes. It appears that
denial of gun purchase significantly lowers the risk of committing
violent and gun-related crimes among the persons who are
directly affected. But the federal background check requirement
has had little effect on overall rates of gun-related violent crime.
One important reason for this is that its mandate applies only to
gun sales by licensed retailers—just 60% of the market.

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGSexecsummweb.pdf

An interesting bit of research.

Done by the Violence Prevention Research Program
Department of Emergency Medicine
UC Davis School of Medicine



subrob1967 -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 4:01:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Many things. Among the most obvious:
1. It is illegal, already, to buy guns "in bulk" without an FFL.


Uh huh... and its illegal to sell guns without a background check... unless you buy at a gun show.


Not quite true, for one you can only sell face to face to a person who lives in your state, otherwise you have to transfer the gun through a FFL dealer, which includes a federal 4473 to make it legal.



ElSabio -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 4:08:13 AM)

The only answer is to put all americans in re education camps, 24/7 the best speeches of obama, over and over again until people can quote him at the drop of a dime. Then the best ones can join the brown shirts and then we got something goin on here! yeah baby.



tazzygirl -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 5:47:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Many things. Among the most obvious:
1. It is illegal, already, to buy guns "in bulk" without an FFL.


Uh huh... and its illegal to sell guns without a background check... unless you buy at a gun show.


Not quite true, for one you can only sell face to face to a person who lives in your state, otherwise you have to transfer the gun through a FFL dealer, which includes a federal 4473 to make it legal.



Read the research article, rob. It more than backs up my statement.. especially this part...

Private party gun sellers are not required to ask
for your identification. They cannot initiate a background check.
There are no forms for you to fill out, and no records need be
kept.

The key is that it is only
illegal for a seller to participate in a prohibited gun sale if he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that he is doing so. The
matter is easily finessed. As one gun seller said while contemplating
a possibly illegal handgun sale, "Of course, if I don't ask,
nobody knows."




Now, unless the laws have changed since 2005, this law is still in effect. If the law has changed, a citation is needed.



tazzygirl -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 5:49:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElSabio

The only answer is to put all americans in re education camps, 24/7 the best speeches of obama, over and over again until people can quote him at the drop of a dime. Then the best ones can join the brown shirts and then we got something goin on here! yeah baby.


Why? So we can all goosestep like you?



philosophy -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 8:27:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Is everyone is the US free?

Define free.  Sure, there are some incarcerated individuals... and some who consider themselves to be the property of others.  But I believe that generally in this country, as long as people conduct themselves within the scope of the law, then they are considered free to move about as they please and live their lives however they wish. That's pretty free, I think.

So... just how is this "not even close"?



...hey Treasure. Say hello to Firm for me :)

i agree with your first two points. Clearly, by any usual definition, the US has closed borders. Now, i suppose some may try to make a literal defintion of the phrase 'closed' and argue contrary, but thats that silly habit of redefining words to suit your argument and not sensible.

The US is, also clearly, an armed society.

However, free is a little more problematic.

Broadly speaking, most people in the US are 'free' (in any usual sense of the word) most of the time. However, some are freer than others. For instance, if you're gay or lesbian some states laws clearly leave you less free than your heterosexual neighbours. i'm sure that other posters could find examples of other laws and regulations which treat different groups of people differently, thus creating variations in citizens access to various societal mechanisms.
Now, if you live in a society where you are free but others are not......is that really a free society? Is the phrase, 'we are all free, but some are freer than others', a philosophically (lol, no pun intended) acceptable definition of freedom?





TreasureKY -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 2:25:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

However, free is a little more problematic.

Broadly speaking, most people in the US are 'free' (in any usual sense of the word) most of the time. However, some are freer than others. For instance, if you're gay or lesbian some states laws clearly leave you less free than your heterosexual neighbours. i'm sure that other posters could find examples of other laws and regulations which treat different groups of people differently, thus creating variations in citizens access to various societal mechanisms.
Now, if you live in a society where you are free but others are not......is that really a free society? Is the phrase, 'we are all free, but some are freer than others', a philosophically (lol, no pun intended) acceptable definition of freedom?


You have a fair point.  I had tried to address that somewhat by challenging the definition of "free", as well as saying "within the scope of the law", but that is still flawed.  Presumably most East German citizens lived their lives as they wished within the scope of the law, but you couldn't call that a free society.

To be honest, we are all subject to laws and regulations that limit our freedom to some degree or another.  It doesn't have to be anything nearly as "dramatic" as sexual preference; freedom to own and operate property as we wish, freedom to earn and spend income however we'd like... we are all restricted by limitations.

I'd say that only those living in anarchy are truly free, but I would think that even under those circumstances, there would be individuals suffering some sort of oppression of freedom.

Maybe there is no such thing as freedom.  [&:]

Edited to add:  Oh... Firm says "hello" to you, too.  [:)]



joether -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 6:13:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Do you think you should be required to register the sale of books?


Weren't invented to kill people. Instead, they were created to transfer knowledge, insight, and concepts across vast distances, without the author having to be present to explain. Firearms were created for one purpose: Military Applications. More specifically, created as arms for warfare. How many US Military soldiers do you see, brandishing a book in one hand, and a pistol in the other? This isn't the Commissar's from the Warhammer 40K Universe we are talking about.

How often do you find public libraries, allowing those under the age of 16 to read 'The Story of O'? How about the latest Playboy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Guns have an Amendment too, and it has in fact always been an individual right.


Actually, 'Arms' have an Amendment, not Guns. All guns are considerd arms, but not all arms, are consider guns. The whole 'its an individual right' has been a propaganda used by folks from the NRA for nearly thirty years. Wasn't there a thread recently on the concept of 'stating a lie over and over as fact, will soon have people believing the lie as fact'? Back in the founding father's day, the best military weapon for the infantry was the musket. The best field artillery was a cannon. Today's best infantry weapon can fire over thirty rounds in seconds (and that's just ONE guy, not his whole platoon). The best 'field artillery' weapon is called a ICBM. You do know what an ICBM can do, right? Do you think the founding fathers would be 'ok' with US citizens carrying liters of VX? That *IS* your arguement, that arms are an individual right.

The 2nd, like the other twenty-six amendments do not give someone an unlimited amount of power. The 2nd was meant to allow towns and villages to protect themselves from indians, brigands, pirates, and crime. In those days, the United States didn't have a real military power. Nor a National Guard & Coast Guard. Likewise, they didnt have Border Agents, FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, US Marshals, State/County/Local Police, and Sheriffs. That REALLY is what a militia is set up to do: protect the general population with arms when a professional army isn't present.

But the 2nd doesn't state just any sort of militia, but....'A well regulated militia...'. What does 'well regulated' mean, truckin?



subrob1967 -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 6:33:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Many things. Among the most obvious:
1. It is illegal, already, to buy guns "in bulk" without an FFL.


Uh huh... and its illegal to sell guns without a background check... unless you buy at a gun show.


Not quite true, for one you can only sell face to face to a person who lives in your state, otherwise you have to transfer the gun through a FFL dealer, which includes a federal 4473 to make it legal.



Read the research article, rob. It more than backs up my statement.. especially this part...

Private party gun sellers are not required to ask
for your identification. They cannot initiate a background check.
There are no forms for you to fill out, and no records need be
kept.

The key is that it is only
illegal for a seller to participate in a prohibited gun sale if he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that he is doing so. The
matter is easily finessed. As one gun seller said while contemplating
a possibly illegal handgun sale, "Of course, if I don't ask,
nobody knows."




Now, unless the laws have changed since 2005, this law is still in effect. If the law has changed, a citation is needed.

The burden of a legal sale falls on the seller's shoulders in the event of the illegal use of the firearm.
quote:

Firearms dealers or private individuals may not sell any firearm to someone less than 18 years old, or less than 23 years old if the buyer was "adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult", or to a person who is mentally incompetent or is a drug or alcohol abuser. Possession of automatic weapons by individuals or dealers who have obtained the appropriate federal license is permitted.

Indiana Code 35-47-2



dcnovice -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 6:48:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElSabio

The only answer is to put all americans in re education camps, 24/7 the best speeches of obama, over and over again until people can quote him at the drop of a dime. Then the best ones can join the brown shirts and then we got something goin on here! yeah baby.


This may possibly be the most moronic post in Collarme history.

No mean feat there, dude.



DarkSteven -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 6:51:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

This may possibly be the most moronic post in Collarme history.

No mean feat there, dude.


Ironic given his username means The Wise One in Spanish. 



slvemike4u -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 8:33:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

However, free is a little more problematic.

Broadly speaking, most people in the US are 'free' (in any usual sense of the word) most of the time. However, some are freer than others. For instance, if you're gay or lesbian some states laws clearly leave you less free than your heterosexual neighbours. i'm sure that other posters could find examples of other laws and regulations which treat different groups of people differently, thus creating variations in citizens access to various societal mechanisms.
Now, if you live in a society where you are free but others are not......is that really a free society? Is the phrase, 'we are all free, but some are freer than others', a philosophically (lol, no pun intended) acceptable definition of freedom?


You have a fair point.  I had tried to address that somewhat by challenging the definition of "free", as well as saying "within the scope of the law", but that is still flawed.  Presumably most East German citizens lived their lives as they wished within the scope of the law, but you couldn't call that a free society.

To be honest, we are all subject to laws and regulations that limit our freedom to some degree or another.  It doesn't have to be anything nearly as "dramatic" as sexual preference; freedom to own and operate property as we wish, freedom to earn and spend income however we'd like... we are all restricted by limitations.

I'd say that only those living in anarchy are truly free, but I would think that even under those circumstances, there would be individuals suffering some sort of oppression of freedom.

Maybe there is no such thing as freedom.  [&:]

Edited to add:  Oh... Firm says "hello" to you, too.  [:)]

"Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.....nothing..."(with apologies to Kris Kristofferson(sp?)



slvemike4u -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 8:37:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElSabio

The only answer is to put all americans in re education camps, 24/7 the best speeches of obama, over and over again until people can quote him at the drop of a dime. Then the best ones can join the brown shirts and then we got something goin on here! yeah baby.


This may possibly be the most moronic post in Collarme history.

No mean feat there, dude.
Nah,this is just ignorant ideologically inspired claptrap...Popeye is still number 1 with his theory that it was American scatter guns that kept the Japs from invading the good old USA.
See that there is simple and pure stupidity...and trumps ideological ignorance every day.



tazzygirl -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/27/2011 9:11:21 PM)

Virginia - 2008

Despite emotional pleas from parents of Virginia Tech shooting victims, a House of Delegates committee on Friday voted down legislation that would require criminal background checks for all firearms purchases at gun shows.

The party-line vote by the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee is a setback for Gov. Tim Kaine and families of Tech shooting victims who want to close Virginia's "gun show loophole," which exempts private, unlicensed sellers from a state law requiring criminal background checks for firearms purchases.


http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/147654

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

Nine states, including New York, have passed laws to close the loophole, requiring background checks on at least all handgun purchases at gun shows. Bloomberg has long campaigned for Congress to close it, and for states to do it on their own if the federal government does not.

Even in states that haven't closed the loophole, federal law bars "occasional sellers" from selling guns to people they have reason to believe would fail background checks.

This is where the Bloomberg operation says 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law during the investigation, in which undercover investigators posing as buyers wore tiny cameras concealed in baseball hats and purses and audio recorders hidden in wristwatches.

In each purchase, the investigator showed interest in buying a gun, agreed on a price and then indicated that he probably could not pass a background check. Most sellers allowed the purchases anyway, responding in some cases by saying, "I couldn't pass one either," or "I don't care," according to the videos.

Two assault rifles and 20 semiautomatic handguns were bought this way, the report said.





http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-07-gun-show-stings_N.htm

Out of all the states, only 16 have closed, to some extent, the gun loophole. And you are ok with this?



KenDckey -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/28/2011 5:13:51 AM)

Update   Feds charge 34

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2011/01/25/20110125arizona-gun-buys-for-cartels-fed-charges.html




tazzygirl -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/28/2011 5:19:57 AM)

Did these people honestly believe those guns wouldnt be traced?



KenDckey -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/28/2011 5:37:42 AM)

Tazzy    can you spell S-T-U-P-U-D     ROFLACGU



truckinslave -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/28/2011 9:33:04 PM)

"Firearms were created for one purpose: Military Applications. "

That is just absurd. Care to take another crack at it?



truckinslave -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/28/2011 9:36:57 PM)

"The whole 'its an individual right' has been a propaganda used by folks from the NRA for nearly thirty years. Wasn't there a thread recently on the concept of 'stating a lie over and over as fact, will soon have people believing the lie as fact'? "

You might try reading McDonald and/or Heller.



truckinslave -> RE: Criminals buying guns in bulk....from AZ (1/28/2011 9:40:25 PM)

Dammit subrob. You're not paying attention!!!! Someone broke Indiana Code 35-47-2. Therefore, we need new laws to stop it from happening again!!!

Then we can fix that falling sky thingie.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625