Private Gun Buyers Invaded a Gun Buyback Program in Seattle

[red states rule]

Nice touch. The free enterprise system at work.
The Seattle Police Department held its first gun buyback event since the 1990s this weekend, offering people gift cards for their firearms. However, dozens of private buyers showed up in an effort to acquire the guns using the so-called gun show loophole, which allows guns to be sold without a background check.
Hundreds of people showed up Saturday morning to give their rifles and shotguns as well as semi-automatic rifles to police in exchange for gift cards worth $100 and $200 respectively, KING 5 reports (http://www.king5.com/news/local/Seattle-gun-buyback-taking-place-Saturday-January-26-188346401.html). The police planned to destroy the guns and use them as rebar in local construction projects.
Meanwhile, a number of private buyers set up a makeshift gun show-style event and offered cold hard cash for guns and even lured customers with donuts.
“I pay cash, I don’t give Amazon gift cards,” one dealer told a gun seller.
“It’s a historical firearm, I would hate to see it get destroyed. I’ll give you $100 cash for it,” another buyer offered a gun owner.
Many held up signs that let gun owners know they would pay cash for unwanted firearms. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/private-buyers-invade-seattle-gun-buyback-offer-cash-for-firearms-that-would-otherwise-be-destroyed-by-police/

[darin]

That's not a f'ing ROCKET Launcher.

That's an expired launch tube for a REDEYE Air Defense missile - last used by the Army circa 1970? The Redeye pre-dates the STINGER made (in)famous by Afghan Rebels vs the Soviets; it's the only weapon I can think of that, upon enterence into a conflict, turned the tide of the War.

What the SPD Foolished paid $200 for is nothing but fiberglass and plastic; they can't be reloaded for two reasons: they were issued as a single round of ammo; upon launch, teams were trained to destroy the tube to avoid the enemy using it as an improvised mortor or possibly IED. Secondly, nobody can buy just the missile itself.

[logroller]

This reminds me of a story I heard a few weeks ago in, I believe AZ, where citizens were invited to give police their weapons in exchange for food vouchers or some such. There were private dealers there offering cash and what not, but that's not the best part. Apparently theres a law in place that requires abandoned property (which the guns in effect were) to be auctioned off. It's all tied up in litigation I'm sure, but talk about a backfire...classic.

[red states rule]

That's not a f'ing ROCKET Launcher.

That's an expired launch tube for a REDEYE Air Defense missile - last used by the Army circa 1970? The Redeye pre-dates the STINGER made (in)famous by Afghan Rebels vs the Soviets; it's the only weapon I can think of that, upon enterence into a conflict, turned the tide of the War.

What the SPD Foolished paid $200 for is nothing but fiberglass and plastic; they can't be reloaded for two reasons: they were issued as a single round of ammo; upon launch, teams were trained to destroy the tube to avoid the enemy using it as an improvised mortor or possibly IED. Secondly, nobody can buy just the missile itself.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/130128boomstickRGB20130129013022.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

ROFL. I wonder what the police thought of the makeshift gun show.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/130128boomstickRGB20130129013022.jpg


You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

Booooooooooomstick go boom, boom, we stop the noise. Then all murders stop..
Really?How about all the other weapons??
Boooomstick the scary one , we get the others after we enslave the unarmed people..

[bingster]

Nice touch. The free enterprise system at work.

Believe it or not, even I don't have a problem with that. The people running the buy back program, I'm sure, only had a limited number of gift cards and I'll bet they still expended that number in gun buy backs.

I'm offended by an attempt made by the NRA to stop an Arizona buy back program from destroying guns they acquired. The NRA insisted that the guns be sold back into the population. I continue to suspect the morality of the NRA.

[tailfins]

This works in reverse too. Why not trade $25 guns in poor condition for a $100 gift card?

[bingster]

NRA continues to make an empty argument regarding background checks. Wayne quotes endless statistics revealing that law enforcement fails to enforce results of current background checks. He uses the lack of enforcement as a reasonable argument that we shouldn't expand background checks to the 40% of guns sold without these checks.

That's like saying that if you're using too course of a fishing net to catch minnows and only catch 20% of fish and not 100% of fish, you should just stop using a net, altogether. Why not use a finer net?

It's stupid and Wayne' fake concern about safety and responsibility is gross and offensive.

[tailfins]

NRA continues to make an empty argument regarding background checks. Wayne quotes endless statistics revealing that law enforcement fails to enforce results of current background checks. He uses the lack of enforcement as a reasonable argument that we shouldn't expand background checks to the 40% of guns sold without these checks.

That's like saying that if you're using too course of a fishing net to catch minnows and only catch 20% of fish and not 100% of fish, you should just stop using the net. Why not use a finer net?

It's stupid and Wayne' fake concern about safety and responsibility is gross and offensive.

OK, how about taking the position that any concessions to the anti-firearm lobby just increases the chances of British-style firearm restrictions. Pointing out the dishonesty and gamesmanship of lefty politicians is an effective approach. Give the gun grabbers NOTHING but opposition.

[Little-Acorn]

"Gun show loophole" (n.) - a small remaining bit of freedom that government hasn't taken away yet.

[Marcus Aurelius]

NRA continues to make an empty argument regarding background checks. Wayne quotes endless statistics revealing that law enforcement fails to enforce results of current background checks. He uses the lack of enforcement as a reasonable argument that we shouldn't expand background checks to the 40% of guns sold without these checks.

That's like saying that if you're using too course of a fishing net to catch minnows and only catch 20% of fish and not 100% of fish, you should just stop using a net, altogether. Why not use a finer net?

It's stupid and Wayne' fake concern about safety and responsibility is gross and offensive.

your analogy is flawed, as usual.

The finer net is what the NRA has publicly stated they want... enforcement of results of existing background checks.

dumb ass.

[aboutime]

your analogy is flawed, as usual.

The finer net is what the NRA has publicly stated they want... enforcement of results of existing background checks.

dumb ass.


Marcus. You know...that doesn't matter, coming from a liberal thinker. They generally, either make up their own facts, or depend on someone else's false facts as being the Unchallenged truth.
But then. God didn't make Little Green Apples either.

[bingster]

OK, how about taking the position that any concessions to the anti-firearm lobby just increases the chances of British-style firearm restrictions. Pointing out the dishonesty and gamesmanship of lefty politicians is an effective approach. Give the gun grabbers NOTHING but opposition.

Do what ever you want with the straw man "gun grabbers" but the vast majority of this country including NRA members want background checks.


your analogy is flawed, as usual.

The finer net is what the NRA has publicly stated they want... enforcement of results of existing background checks.

dumb ass.

I think you're a smart man and give you credit for that. We have always said we want to enforce results of existing background checks. It is a flawed argument when you say a historically bad record on enforcement is a good excuse to allow a 40% hole to stay wide open for criminals, nut cases, and terrorists. Even a bad job enforcing background checks is better than no background checks. Only a dumb ass can say different.

[Robert A Whit]

Nice touch. The free enterprise system at work.

Yes. Around the SF Bay Area, they are making a big deal out of police so called buy backs.

I hoped the news would admit that regular people who appreciate some of those arms would gladly pay more than the cops pay. Besides, cops run out of cash. Some also resorted to certificates. In San Jose Ca, they were broke and wanted the guns for free. Ergo "so called buyback"

[bingster]

"Gun show loophole" (n.) - a small remaining bit of freedom that government hasn't taken away yet.

You're absolutely right! That small amount of freedom to irresponsibly grab all of the guns you want with no background check, no ID, for any reason you want! I really would prefer you not have that freedom, along with criminals, nut bags, and terrorists. Color me paranoid.

[Robert A Whit]

NRA continues to make an empty argument regarding background checks. Wayne quotes endless statistics revealing that law enforcement fails to enforce results of current background checks. He uses the lack of enforcement as a reasonable argument that we shouldn't expand background checks to the 40% of guns sold without these checks.

That's like saying that if you're using too course of a fishing net to catch minnows and only catch 20% of fish and not 100% of fish, you should just stop using a net, altogether. Why not use a finer net?

It's stupid and Wayne' fake concern about safety and responsibility is gross and offensive.

Apparently you have not had to use the State or Federal laws to sell any guns.

While I did not receive any background checks, I did sell through federal licensed gun dealers.

Can't tell you that there is a reason to background check gun dealers.

Wny not visit GunsAmerica.com and read up on the current rules.

Feinsein is being an asshole. She sees this as her opportunity to remove freedoms enjoyed in the second amendment.


You're absolutely right! That small amount of freedom to irresponsibly grab all of the guns you want with no background check, no ID, for any reason you want! I really would prefer you not have that freedom, along with criminals, nut bags, and terrorists. Color me paranoid.

You claim 40% do not get checked. That is not true. Gun dealers with licenses sell guns at gun shows. As to the few with no license that sells a gun, most of those sold are for collectors and are citizen to citizen. Each Citizen is protected by the 2nd Amendment unless that Jerk Feinstein has her way.

I sold a licensed firearms dealer in Illionois a 45/70 post Civil War Army rifle. Do you mean to tell me I had to have somebody check out that gun dealer? I was getting rid of it so there was no valid reason for me to have a back ground check.


That's not a f'ing ROCKET Launcher.

That's an expired launch tube for a REDEYE Air Defense missile - last used by the Army circa 1970? The Redeye pre-dates the STINGER made (in)famous by Afghan Rebels vs the Soviets; it's the only weapon I can think of that, upon enterence into a conflict, turned the tide of the War.

What the SPD Foolished paid $200 for is nothing but fiberglass and plastic; they can't be reloaded for two reasons: they were issued as a single round of ammo; upon launch, teams were trained to destroy the tube to avoid the enemy using it as an improvised mortor or possibly IED. Secondly, nobody can buy just the missile itself.

I fired the 3.5" rocket launcher in 1963 at Hohenfels Germany and it looked nothing like that weapon. I never saw one of those. I did see our Units Davy Crocketts though.

Shoot one of those and you really get some attention.

My First Sgt set me up to shoot the rocket launcher for some General. It may have been Gen. Frank Mildren.

They had moving targets. They rigged up a Jeep to pull targets back and forth and some of the guys and myself were to try to hit the targets. We killed the targets. With no targets, I started shooting at the moving sticks that the cloth targets had been mounted on and was hitting the sticks. My CO told me the General was highly impressed.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I think you're a smart man and give you credit for that. We have always said we want to enforce results of existing background checks. It is a flawed argument when you say a historically bad record on enforcement is a good excuse to allow a 40% hole to stay wide open for criminals, nut cases, and terrorists. Even a bad job enforcing background checks is better than no background checks. Only a dumb ass can say different.

Like your brain, your 40% hole doesn't exist.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott


The Brady Act background checks currently prevent someone who buys from a federally licensed dealer from buying a gun if he has a felony, or in many cases a misdemeanor conviction, or has been involuntarily committed for mental illness. Prior to Brady, federal law merely required that people sign a statement stating that they did not have a criminal record or a history of mental problems under threat of perjury. Obama’s 40 percent claim makes it look like a lot of gun buyers are avoiding these checks.



Actually, the number reported was a bit lower, 36 percent, and as we will see the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent. More important, the number (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/06955/documentation) comes from a 251-person survey (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf) on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration. More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994. In addition, guns are not sold in the same way today that they were sold two decades ago.

A 20 year old survey, of 251 people, which covered sales BEFORE the Brady Act... THAT is your 40% hole... non-existent.


Also, from that 20 year old survey...


But the high figure comes primarily from including such transactions as inheritances or gifts from family members. Putting aside these various biases, if you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through FFLs; just 15 percent were transferred without a background check.


If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent.



You might be content to rely on old, incomplete and simply untrue numbers... but not me.

[darin]

Loooked nothing like it cuz that doesn't shoot rockets ;)



I fired the 3.5" rocket launcher in 1963 at Hohenfels Germany and it looked nothing like that weapon. I never saw one of those. I did see our Units Davy Crocketts though.

Shoot one of those and you really get some attention.

My First Sgt set me up to shoot the rocket launcher for some General. It may have been Gen. Frank Mildren.

They had moving targets. They rigged up a Jeep to pull targets back and forth and some of the guys and myself were to try to hit the targets. We killed the targets. With no targets, I started shooting at the moving sticks that the cloth targets had been mounted on and was hitting the sticks. My CO told me the General was highly impressed.

[gabosaurus]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/N7vCww3j2-w" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe> .

[bingster]

Like your brain, your 40% hole doesn't exist.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott


A 20 year old survey, of 251 people, which covered sales BEFORE the Brady Act... THAT is your 40% hole... non-existent.


Also, from that 20 year old survey...



You might be content to rely on old, incomplete and simply untrue numbers... but not me.

I'll look into the 40% later, but I don't automatically believe anything I read in the National Review.

I'm embarassed to say I didn't automatically notice what a dishonest twist of logic Wayn LaPierre did during today's hearings. He fixated on a number of NCIS background checks that came back saying that the attempted gun purchaser illegally attempted to buy a gun. Since such a small number of these wannabee buyers were actually prosecuted for attempting to illegally purchase a fire arm. He says it's not necessary to expand background checks to private gun sales.

My original argument is still sound: even a bad background check is better than no background check, BUT HE'S MISSING THE POINT!

The background checks still, whether they were prosecuted or not, kept bad guys from getting guns. They may not have been prosecuted, but even Mr NRA didn't say they unlawfully obtained a gun. That is the point, not the smoke screen Mr NRA threw up. His only mission in life is to sell guns. Anything that will hurt his gun sales kickbacks is his enemy.


Like your brain, your 40% hole doesn't exist.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott


A 20 year old survey, of 251 people, which covered sales BEFORE the Brady Act... THAT is your 40% hole... non-existent.


Also, from that 20 year old survey...



You might be content to rely on old, incomplete and simply untrue numbers... but not me.

Even taking all of your information regarding the "old survey" nobody would claim that 40% is non-existent. Maybe it's 30%. ,maybe it's 20%. ANY guns sold without a background check is not safe. Usually, it only takes one gun.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'll look into the 40% later, but I don't automatically believe anything I read in the National Review.

I'm embarassed to say I didn't automatically notice what a dishonest twist of logic Wayn LaPierre did during today's hearings. He fixated on a number of NCIS background checks that came back saying that the attempted gun purchaser illegally attempted to buy a gun. Since such a small number of these wannabee buyers were actually prosecuted for attempting to illegally purchase a fire arm. He says it's not necessary to expand background checks to private gun sales.

My original argument is still sound: even a bad background check is better than no background check, BUT HE'S MISSING THE POINT!

The background checks still, whether they were prosecuted or not, kept bad guys from getting guns. They may not have been prosecuted, but even Mr NRA didn't say they unlawfully obtained a gun. That is the point, not the smoke screen Mr NRA threw up. His only mission in life is to sell guns. Anything that will hurt his gun sales kickbacks is his enemy.

Point 1: There are two links in the piece to the survey. Of course, had you not dismissed it out of hand because of the source and the fact that it doesn't fit your world view, you might have seen them.

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/06955/documentation

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Point 2: No, it isn't, and no, YOU are missing the point. It's been explained to you about a dozen times, and you simply ignore it... again, because it doesn't fit your world view.

Point 3: This has also been pointed out to you, multiple times... No amount of background checks will keep criminals from getting guns. You could background check 100% of legal purchases, and it will not reduce the number of guns in criminals hands, BECAUSE THEY DONT BUY THEM LEGALLY!!!


Even taking all of your information regarding the "old survey" nobody would claim that 40% is non-existent. Maybe it's 30%. ,maybe it's 20%. ANY guns sold without a background check is not safe. Usually, it only takes one gun.

You are being willfully ignorant, and not reading the numbers cited in the article. Purposeful stupidity such as yours is sad.

[cadet]

You're absolutely right! That small amount of freedom to irresponsibly grab all of the guns you want with no background check, no ID, for any reason you want!

You ever heard of the black market? You know you don't need a gun show to buy guns, right?

Do you know what's more dangerous then guns? Bleach, I could make plenty of chemical compounds with it to kill off most of my school before they knew what was going on. And I'd never be caught. We should ban bleach.


I really would prefer you not have that freedom, along with criminals, nut bags, and terrorists. Color me paranoid.

Not to be really mean about this, but you just proved the republican point. Criminals and nut bags will have that freedom no matter what, hence the name criminals. You think they follow the rules? You know how easy a cheap gun is to make? Do you know you can still get them in other countries? Do you realize that banning guns would turn into what moonshine was during prohibition?
Even the THOUGHTS of regulating guns has caused black market sales to increase 10 fold.

I don't know about you, but when it comes down to it and i have to face one of those "nut bags" that can still find a gun, i'd rather have one to protect me and my own.








One last thing, if outlawing it worked, why hasn't it worked for pot and crack?

[bingster]

Like your brain, your 40% hole doesn't exist.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott


A 20 year old survey, of 251 people, which covered sales BEFORE the Brady Act... THAT is your 40% hole... non-existent.


Also, from that 20 year old survey...



You might be content to rely on old, incomplete and simply untrue numbers... but not me.

More info in relation to your info:

In 1999, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a report on gun shows. (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf) Investigators found that a quarter of the vendors were private sellers, not licensed dealers, and reported that "felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows." They said guns from such shows had been used in drug crimes.

We called the ATF and asked if there was anything more recent. They had nothing new to add. We called the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, groups that oppose new efforts to track gun transactions. Neither organization responded.

The City of New York (http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/downloads/pdf/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf) commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales in 2011. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check.

Our ruling

Bloomberg said 40 percent of gun sales take place through gun shows or the Internet, without a background check.

The best information on the informal gun market is based on a survey and is about 15 years old (the data used in the survey is almost 20 years old). There’s no question that many guns are bought with no background check, but there’s not sufficient current evidence to say that the proportion is 40 percent of all sales.

Bloomberg’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out that important detail: Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

When you consider Politifact's studies, the number might not be 40%, but it's still not only insignificant, it is unnecessary. 100% Background checks should be the law, period!

[red states rule]

Meanwhile DNCTV has yet to fess up over another example of the liberal media lying to advance the lefts political agenda
For the third time in the past year, NBC News has been caught selectively editing video (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/01/30/another-dishonest-video-edit-nbc-martin-bashir-smears-gun-rights) for political gain, with the most recent instance coming on the Monday, January 28 Martin Bashir program. Bashir ran heavily edited video showing Neil Helsin, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the Newtown shooting, appearing to be heckled by audience members during a legislative hearing on gun control. The chorus of criticism from media critics on the right and left forced MSNBC to backtrack, but not apologize.



<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119725" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/01/30/msnbc-fails-apologize-deceptive-video-hecklers-newtown-father#ixzz2JZ87rFhm

[bingster]

"We think it 's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mental ill are in the system. "
Wayne LaPierre 1999.

That was before the NRA began taking $1 per sale and "round up" change from gun manufacturers and gun dealers.


Meanwhile DNCTV has yet to fess up over another example of the liberal media lying to advance the lefts political agenda

That's crap. I saw both versions. This story is a hell of a lot more misleading that what the Bashir show did.

The guy was telling his story when a bunch of people in the background started yelling "2nd Amendment, Shall not abridge!" To some degree you can say they were answering the distraught father's question, but not. He asked why you "need" assault weapons. The answer to need is not "2nd amendment".

It's a stupid story.

[Marcus Aurelius]

More info in relation to your info:

In 1999, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a report on gun shows. (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf) Investigators found that a quarter of the vendors were private sellers, not licensed dealers, and reported that "felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows." They said guns from such shows had been used in drug crimes.

We called the ATF and asked if there was anything more recent. They had nothing new to add. We called the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, groups that oppose new efforts to track gun transactions. Neither organization responded.

The City of New York (http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/downloads/pdf/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf) commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales in 2011. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check.

Our ruling

Bloomberg said 40 percent of gun sales take place through gun shows or the Internet, without a background check.

The best information on the informal gun market is based on a survey and is about 15 years old (the data used in the survey is almost 20 years old). There’s no question that many guns are bought with no background check, but there’s not sufficient current evidence to say that the proportion is 40 percent of all sales.

Bloomberg’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out that important detail: Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

When you consider Politifact's studies, the number might not be 40%, but it's still not only insignificant, it is unnecessary. 100% Background checks should be the law, period!

Ok, let's recap...

Your first source isnt where you, Obama, and the rest of the libtards got their non-existent '40% hole' figure from, so it means nothing in the context of you trying desperatly to prove the 40% figure.

Your City of New York 'study' is ridiculous and not in the least scientific. Go re-read the link.

From Politifact...

Bloomberg’s office pointed us to a 1997 study (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf) by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on data from a 1994 survey of more than 2,500 households. But it’s important to note that of the 2,568 households surveyed, only 251 people answered the question about the origin of their gun.

As I already pointed out, this makes the 40% figure completely bogus, thus Politifact being generous in giving Bloomberg Half-True status on this.

100% background checks will not stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns, dipshit.


"We think it 's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mental ill are in the system. "
Wayne LaPierre 1999.

That was before the NRA began taking $1 per sale and "round up" change from gun manufacturers and gun dealers.

link?

Excuse me... CREDIBLE link?

[bingster]

Point 1: There are two links in the piece to the survey. Of course, had you not dismissed it out of hand because of the source and the fact that it doesn't fit your world view, you might have seen them.

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/06955/documentation

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Point 2: No, it isn't, and no, YOU are missing the point. It's been explained to you about a dozen times, and you simply ignore it... again, because it doesn't fit your world view.

Point 3: This has also been pointed out to you, multiple times... No amount of background checks will keep criminals from getting guns. You could background check 100% of legal purchases, and it will not reduce the number of guns in criminals hands, BECAUSE THEY DONT BUY THEM LEGALLY!!!

You gave me a couple of links that have a lot of information and I don't know what of that information you wanted me to learn. I did pick this up, though:

• There were 13.7 million firearm
transactions in 1993–1994, including
6.5 million handguns. About
60 percent of gun acquisitions involved
federally licensed dealers.

Hey! More proof for my 40%!

It's not a matter of world view. Nothing you could put up would prove any effects of a 100% background checks because that doesn't exist right now.

Your attachment with the "criminal" portion is just ignorant. If a criminal can't get a gun legally, he'll go to a gun show where he doesn't need a background check. Once background checks are required for all, he'll get the gun somewhere else, but maybe, putting more efforts into gun trafficking might trip him up there, or put into jail who he may buy from.

Your assumption that criminals will always get their guns somewhere is just asinine. So, why don't you open a free gun facility. You've already thrown up your hands in surrender, you might as well give guns to criminals as a charity.

If it's harder for criminals to get guns........ ITS BETTER. Why is that so hard to get into your bubble-like world view? A minute and a half background check is way too much to pay for an innocent person to buy a gun? Really?


link?

Excuse me... CREDIBLE link?

I did this already with Jim. Find it yourself.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You gave me a couple of links that have a lot of information and I don't know what of that information you wanted me to learn. I did pick this up, though:

• There were 13.7 million firearm
transactions in 1993–1994, including
6.5 million handguns. About
60 percent of gun acquisitions involved
federally licensed dealers.

Hey! More proof for my 40%!

It's not a matter of world view. Nothing you could put up would prove any effects of a 100% background checks because that doesn't exist right now.

Your attachment with the "criminal" portion is just ignorant. If a criminal can't get a gun legally, he'll go to a gun show where he doesn't need a background check. Once background checks are required for all, he'll get the gun somewhere else, but maybe, putting more efforts into gun trafficking might trip him up there, or put into jail who he may buy from.

Your assumption that criminals will always get their guns somewhere is just asinine. So, why don't you open a free gun facility. You've already thrown up your hands in surrender, you might as well give guns to criminals as a charity.

If it's harder for criminals to get guns........ ITS BETTER. Why is that so hard to get into your bubble-like world view? A minute and a half background check is way too much to pay for an innocent person to buy a gun? Really?



I did this already with Jim. Find it yourself.

Point 1: Read the rest of the number from my original source, that came from the two links and the SAME FUCKING REPORTS you and Obama cite... it shows how the 40% is bogus, dipshit.

Point 2: Again, you are being willfully ignorant. It's hard to debate this subject with you when you continue to use information proven to be bogus, and make completely idiotic statement like this one.

Point 3: Saying that criminals will continue to buy guns illegally, instead of at gun shows, is what you consider asinine? Wow. The depth of your stupidity seems to know no bounds. How do you manage to breath in and out on a regular basis?

Point 4: 100% background checks of people purchasing guns WILL NOT AFFECT CRIMINALS WHO BUY THEIR GUNS ILLEGALLY TO BEGIN WITH! Apparently, you're simply not intelligent enough to understand this basic concept.

[aboutime]

You ever heard of the black market? You know you don't need a gun show to buy guns, right?

Do you know what's more dangerous then guns? Bleach, I could make plenty of chemical compounds with it to kill off most of my school before they knew what was going on. And I'd never be caught. We should ban bleach.



Not to be really mean about this, but you just proved the republican point. Criminals and nut bags will have that freedom no matter what, hence the name criminals. You think they follow the rules? You know how easy a cheap gun is to make? Do you know you can still get them in other countries? Do you realize that banning guns would turn into what moonshine was during prohibition?
Even the THOUGHTS of regulating guns has caused black market sales to increase 10 fold.

I don't know about you, but when it comes down to it and i have to face one of those "nut bags" that can still find a gun, i'd rather have one to protect me and my own.





One last thing, if outlawing it worked, why hasn't it worked for pot and crack?



cadet. Along those same lines. And something none of us have heard a PEEP about from Obama, Feinstein, or the Gun haters is. H20...Known more as WATER. Kills more people around the world every day than all of the guns ever used in all of our wars.

Wonder why NOBODY has called on Obama and the Dems to BAN WATER.

It is dangerous to breathe, swallow, fall in, bathe in, and sadly. Children are the most common victims of it.

Think about it. Then investigate the HIGH NUMBERS of death by water, compared with by firearms.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613248#post613248)
"We think it 's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mental ill are in the system. "
Wayne LaPierre 1999.

That was before the NRA began taking $1 per sale and "round up" change from gun manufacturers and gun dealers.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613262#post613262)

link?

Excuse me... CREDIBLE link?



I did this already with Jim. Find it yourself.

yup... you're just too stupid for words.

http://factcheck.org/2013/01/do-assault-weapons-sales-pay-nra-salaries/
Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries?
The NRA Foundation (https://www.nrafoundation.org/) and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action (http://www.nraila.org/about-nra-ila.aspx) each operate separate fundraising programs that allow gun customers at participating gun stores to “round up” the purchase price to the nearest dollar as a contribution. Some customers may be asked instead, depending on the company making the sale, to “add a buck for shooting’s future (http://www.nrahq.org/givejoinhelp/giving/roundup.asp)” — much in the same way that some food stores ask for small donations to fight cancer or hunger when customers check out.It's like putting part of your tax refund to the Presidential Election Fund... COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY, dumb ass.



In one case, the gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Company tied its donations directly to gun sales in a program called the “Million Gun Challenge.” According to an April 2012 press release (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/4-april/sturm,-ruger-company-raises-over-$12-million-to-benefit-the-nra-institute-for-legislative-action.aspx?s=%22Lead%22&st=&ps=), Ruger promised to donate $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold over the course of a year, from May 2011 to May 2012. The “Million Gun Challenge” exceeded its goal and raised $1.25 million.


Murphy would have been on safer ground to cite the “Million Gun Challenge” as an example to support his claims about the NRA, rather than “round-up” programs that are funded by gun customers and help support community programs.

ONE manufacturer, one... tied donations to the NRA to gun sales.

You, like Sen. Murphy, are confusing the 'round up', with a single manufacturers actions... and the furthering your stupidity by attributing it to all gun manufacturers and dealers.

Of course, sine these facts go against your world view, you'll either ignore them or claim they somehow prove what you said.

[logroller]

You gave me a couple of links that have a lot of information and I don't know what of that information you wanted me to learn. I did pick this up, though:

• There were 13.7 million firearm
transactions in 1993–1994, including
6.5 million handguns. About
60 percent of gun acquisitions involved
federally licensed dealers.

Hey! More proof for my 40%!

It's not a matter of world view. Nothing you could put up would prove any effects of a 100% background checks because that doesn't exist right now.

Your attachment with the "criminal" portion is just ignorant. If a criminal can't get a gun legally, he'll go to a gun show where he doesn't need a background check. Once background checks are required for all, he'll get the gun somewhere else, but maybe, putting more efforts into gun trafficking might trip him up there, or put into jail who he may buy from.

Your assumption that criminals will always get their guns somewhere is just asinine. So, why don't you open a free gun facility. You've already thrown up your hands in surrender, you might as well give guns to criminals as a charity.

If it's harder for criminals to get guns........ ITS BETTER. Why is that so hard to get into your bubble-like world view? A minute and a half background check is way too much to pay for an innocent person to buy a gun? Really?



I did this already with Jim. Find it yourself.
Asinine, really? Here's the problem with your statistic; it proved your assumption, so failed to look deeper. What made up the remaining 60%? In CA, where background checks are mandatory, it is legal to transfer a firearm to immediate family by sending a form to the CA DoJ (plus a $19 fee). That would be a "loophole" as well I suppose, but atleast its documented. As for criminals getting guns, here's some stats:

Method of Firearm Acquisition as Reported by Prison Inmates
Source of Firearm as Reported by Prison Inmates
Bureau of Justice Statistics (1993)
Handgun possessed by inmate
Method of acquisition:

9% direct theft


27% retail purchase
Source of acquisition:

31% family/friends

28% black market/fence

27% retail outlet

Wright and Rossi (1994)
Most recent handgun—incarcerated felons
Method:

43% cash purchase

32% direct theft

24% rent/borrow, trade, or gift
+Estimated 40-70% directly or indirectly through theft
Source:

44% family and friends

26% black market/fence

21% retail outlet


Sheley and Wright (1993)
Most recent handgun—incarcerated juveniles
Method:

32% straw purchase

12% theft
Source: 90% from friend, family, street, drug dealer, drug addict, house or car


the problem with statistics is they don't tell the whole story. For example, the justice stats above-- what're the remaining sources-- it only account for 36%? This is made even more problematic with black markets and, yes, even gun show purchases which are largely untracked. Surveys are often used to capture these stats, but they are often prone to bias (not necessarily intentional) and range significantly. Often these statistics from a small group are used to model larger groups, even the whole nation. The combination of biased surveys, incomplete responses and nationwide guesses as to how many of these untracked purchases occur renders a margin of error which I don't hesitate to think may very well exceed 25%. You see, the methodology of any statistical analysis often make use of assumptions. If you go out looking to prove gunshow loopholes lead to criminals getting guns, you look no further than criminals commit gun crimes and 40% of purchases arent background checked; surmising it is these loopholes which lead to gun crime. Same thing with black scary guns; but the hard stats don't indicate such. Here's a book link if you're interested. Has a lot of info. Might get you a little more familiar with what gun statistics show in more than a 10 second blurb which affirms your assumption. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=53

[red states rule]

I'll look into the 40% later, but I don't automatically believe anything I read in the National Review.

I'm embarassed to say I didn't automatically notice what a dishonest twist of logic Wayn LaPierre did during today's hearings. He fixated on a number of NCIS background checks that came back saying that the attempted gun purchaser illegally attempted to buy a gun. Since such a small number of these wannabee buyers were actually prosecuted for attempting to illegally purchase a fire arm. He says it's not necessary to expand background checks to private gun sales.

My original argument is still sound: even a bad background check is better than no background check, BUT HE'S MISSING THE POINT!

The background checks still, whether they were prosecuted or not, kept bad guys from getting guns. They may not have been prosecuted, but even Mr NRA didn't say they unlawfully obtained a gun. That is the point, not the smoke screen Mr NRA threw up. His only mission in life is to sell guns. Anything that will hurt his gun sales kickbacks is his enemy.

If libs are so dedicated to background checks to stop convicted felons from buying guns why is the Obama administration not prosecuting people who LIE on their background checks?

Second, are libs so desperate to advance their gun grabbing agenda they have to have their devoted supporters at MSNBC edit video to paint opponents of their agenda as thugs attacking a father who lost his child at Sandy Hook

[Little-Acorn]

You're absolutely right! That small amount of freedom to irresponsibly grab all of the guns you want
Where do you get the idea I'm "irresponsible"? Are you even aware of what I do with my guns?

Actually the question should be more general: Are you even aware?


with no background check, no ID, for any reason you want!
My background and ID are fine, thanks. Run along and play.


I really would prefer you not have that freedom,
When I want your opinion on what freedoms I should or shouldn't have, I'll let you know. Until then, see the above suggestion.


Color me paranoid.
Done. :poke: