Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
12-19 Shot In Nola Mother's Day Parade.  
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Unclear if there are any deaths yet. Youngest victim was 10, but it was "just a graze." And probably panic attacks for a while.   Number of injured varies with the network.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/12...-in-new-orleans-mother-day-parade/

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/12/us...iana-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

There were armed cops around and yet the shooting occurred. Turns out that having armed guards around doesn't seem to stop this sort of "hit-and-run" attack.

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinearmitageshanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3645 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2302 times:

You mean baby mama day.

User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting armitageshanks (Reply 1):
You mean baby mama day.

And we have a winner!

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Youngest victim was 10, but it was "just a graze." And probably panic attacks for a while.

Living in New Orleans, you can't say the panic is unjustified. They have the pretty parts for the tourists, but from what I've heard it's still not a nice place even after Katrina drove some of the troublemakers out.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2276 times:

Somehow ironic since the perps were probably brought up by slightly less than stellar mothers.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Looks like the NRA sent a Mother's Day card 
Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
There were armed cops around and yet the shooting occurred. Turns out that having armed guards around doesn't seem to stop this sort of "hit-and-run" attack.

   Same with the Ft Hood shooting



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6596 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From what I´ve read in other media that is not American, it has been ruled out as a terrorist attack by the incompe...sorry, the New Orleans PD.

User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

A mothers day parade, who the hell has a mothers day parade?

User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 6):
A mothers day parade, who the hell has a mothers day parade?

I have no idea. In general, I find parades to be an incredible nuisance even when they don't include gunfire.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 6):
who the hell has a mothers day parade?

It was a second-line parade. Who doesn't love a parade?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ZEyFqFTv4



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):

In an ideal world, the mothers and kids would be brandishing machine guns, like they do in sub-Saharan Africa. Time we caught up with the everyone else!


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
There were armed cops around and yet the shooting occurred. Turns out that having armed guards around doesn't seem to stop this sort of "hit-and-run" attack.

You're right, hit and run, drive-by type shootings, by their nature are hard to defend against. Near as I can tell, this was planned with the express intent to create havoc and allow the shooter(s) to get away.

I suspect that the actual incident didn't last more than a few seconds and the shooter(s) faded into the crowd and mayhem they created.

The police say its a flare-up of street violence...and it may be. But, to me, it almost seems like a probe to test for response.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
Same with the Ft Hood shooting

Really, there were armed folks at Ft. Hood? Inside the building? I'm thinking; not.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2052 times:

From what I´ve read, it looks like a fight between members of different gangs or criminals. The victims didn´t seem to have been especially targeted, but were more "in the wrong place at the wrong time"and got hit by stray bullets. If the general public were deliberately targeted, we would have seen several people killed. It wouldn´t be surprised if the guns used were some cheap "saturday night specia"l handguns.

Jan

[Edited 2013-05-13 04:59:57]

User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6166 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 11):
it looks like a fight between members of different gangs or criminals

When I heard about the shooting the first thing I thought of was street gang violence. NOLA is loaded with that kind of thing.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
Really, there were armed folks at Ft. Hood? Inside the building? I'm thinking; not.

Exactly.... Some people think military bases are loaded with people who are walking around with guns, which is not true I have never been on an Army base, but judging from the USAF and USN bases I have on been people aren't armed.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
Looks like the NRA sent a Mother's Day card

Street gangs and the NRA have nothing to do with each other. I have been to a a number of NRA annual meetings and I doubt there would be a gang member within sight of that event. The sheer volume of police officers who attend would scare those types away.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
but from what I've heard it's still not a nice place even after Katrina drove some of the troublemakers out.

They came back....

Was it a real parade or just some stupid even cooked up by some community group. Yesterday I saw Women Walking Woodward for Peace", in Detroit. That event got no press coverage but if something happened during it, it would have made all the media outlets.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
There were armed cops around and yet the shooting occurred

Like a bunch of street thugs would care about that. The NOLA police have been recognized over and over and over as a corrupt force. I doubt a lot of street gang members take them seriously.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 8):
It was a second-line parade



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 12):
Exactly.... Some people think military bases are loaded with people who are walking around with guns, which is not true I have never been on an Army base, but judging from the USAF and USN bases I have on been people aren't armed.

Yup. Normally the military have very strict rules about the carriage of the service weapons, especially outside a warzone in a garrison. The weapons are usually kept under lock and key in the barracks armoury, and the soldiers only get them, against signature, if ordered so by their superiors, and then only for duty purposes. After the duty is finished (training, standing guard etc.) they´ll have to clean their weapins and then return them to trhe armoury.
The only soldiers seen with weapons inside a typical military installation in peacetime outside a warzone (where the camp might be attacked at any time, so the soldiers will have to be ready to fight instantly) are the guards and military police on duty, except if a unit goes on a training exercise, where they would need their weapons.
Ammunition is similarly restricted. In most militaries each round has to be accounted for (again in peacetime outside a warzone) and the military keep strict control on the ammunition to prevent accidents, e.g. at any time a soldier can only have one type of ammunition on him: either live ammunition, blanks or inert exercise ammunition, so that the possibility of one soldier accidentally shooting another one through a mixup of ammunition types ("but I thought there were blank rounds in the magazine!")is reduced.
I would be surprised if the US military would be different. The US Army in West Berlin defintely banned the private possession of large knives inside the barracks. A GI friend of mine back in the 1980s, with who I used to go scuba diving, asked me to keep his diving knife in my place for him, since it was not allowed inside his barracks.

Jan


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1901 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 13):
The weapons are usually kept under lock and key in the barracks armoury, and the soldiers only get them, against signature, if ordered so by their superiors, and then only for duty purposes.

We always kept our weapons in our lockers. Bolt in one and the rest in another. Never ammunition in the lockers.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
Living in New Orleans, you can't say the panic is unjustified. They have the pretty parts for the tourists, but from what I've heard it's still not a nice place even after Katrina drove some of the troublemakers out.

No, I mean the kid. Perfect setup for PTSD in a 10yo brain.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 14):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 13):
The weapons are usually kept under lock and key in the barracks armoury, and the soldiers only get them, against signature, if ordered so by their superiors, and then only for duty purposes.

We always kept our weapons in our lockers. Bolt in one and the rest in another. Never ammunition in the lockers.

What i described is the way they do it in the German and British armies.

Jan


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
There were armed cops around and yet the shooting occurred. Turns out that having armed guards around doesn't seem to stop this sort of "hit-and-run" attack.

Oh c'mon, you want to make this political? Probably some gangsta's arguing over turf. And with a crowd, unless the cop is standing 5 feet behind the perp, there is not much he can do.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 6):
A mothers day parade, who the hell has a mothers day parade?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
I have no idea. In general, I find parades to be an incredible nuisance even when they don't include gunfire.

Hey, It's N'awlins. They have parades for funerals. The French Quarter is made for parties and parades. If you don't like them, don't live there.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

I suppose we've all seen the stills by now. Doesn't look anything remotely like gang wars or drive-by shootings, rather it looks like a dude waiting until the time is just right before unloading into the middle of the crowd.

The stills are also a perfect example of why the whole idea of "an armed citizen will be able to fight off the perpetrators" is idiotic. It's blindingly obvious, at least when it comes to untrained civilians, that human nature takes over at the first sound of gun fire, and that nature is to duck and run - not to stand and fight.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
There were armed cops around and yet the shooting occurred. Turns out that having armed guards around doesn't seem to stop this sort of "hit-and-run" attack.

   Same with the Ft Hood shooting
Quoting falstaff (Reply 12):
Exactly.... Some people think military bases are loaded with people who are walking around with guns, which is not true I have never been on an Army base, but judging from the USAF and USN bases I have on been people aren't armed.

LOL I was gonna comment on this actually... military bases are some of the most stringent gun control zones there are. A huge chunk of servicemembers are CCW holders but none of them are armed.

Yeah, I don't get why some people think we all run around with M-4s, rounds loaded in the chamber. Even when going to the range, they essentially baby you when you have any rounds and they check to make sure you're unloaded about a million times after you're done. Worst example ever



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 18):
The stills are also a perfect example of why the whole idea of "an armed citizen will be able to fight off the perpetrators" is idiotic. It's blindingly obvious, at least when it comes to untrained civilians, that human nature takes over at the first sound of gun fire, and that nature is to duck and run - not to stand and fight.

Actually, that's a very good and strong instinct. Duck and cover would be my first instinct. But, one question, just an itty bitty question:

What if the shooter decides to continue shooting? You know, he starts targeting individuals? Cornering them were they took cover? What then?

In this case, the police (armed people) would have probably gotten to him (I hope they're better shots than the NYPD was last year).

But, what if there aren't any police?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

They have a suspect. Nice work NOPD (for a change).

http://www.wwltv.com/news/NOPD-names...others-Day-shooting-207306761.html

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
Living in New Orleans, you can't say the panic is unjustified. They have the pretty parts for the tourists, but from what I've heard it's still not a nice place even after Katrina drove some of the troublemakers out.

Just like most places there are good areas and bad areas. 95% of the violent crime takes place in older residential areas where the only reason you'd go there would be if you lived there.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 12):
When I heard about the shooting the first thing I thought of was street gang violence. NOLA is loaded with that kind of thing.

Most of it is drug related and isolated in several older areas of the city. It's unfortunate from time to time innocent bystanders get caught in the line of fire. The people who are doing this have no concern for human life and really no concern for their future because chances are they'll get caught eventually.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 63
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 18):
The stills are also a perfect example of why the whole idea of "an armed citizen will be able to fight off the perpetrators" is idiotic. It's blindingly obvious, at least when it comes to untrained civilians, that human nature takes over at the first sound of gun fire, and that nature is to duck and run - not to stand and fight.

actually this is what you should do, armed or not (and what soldiers get trained to do). Hear shots, duck, cover, assess the situation (where are the shots coming from? Can you see the shooter? How many of them are there? Where are they? How are they armed? Where are my friends? Can they help me in the fight? How can I coordinate with them? What tactics to use?) and then react and fight back. The last thing you would want an armed (good) person to do is to shoot randomly around, hoping to hit a bad guy.

Jan


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

MD11 Engineer:

I know that, having served as an officer in the army back in my younger and more foolish days. It does seem, however, that some people have been watching way too many Hollywood productions, and believe an armed civilian would be just the ticket in a gunfight against an armed terrorist. Chances are the civilian would be either dead or, if he's lucky and quick, has made his escape and lost contact with the terrorist.

What does work is having paramilitary types, exquistly trained, highly alert and always kept abreast of posible threats. Israel has gone and done that, posting military types in civilian clothes to protect schools. No doubt they'll enjoy a high level of success, but only because of their training and level of alertness and knowledge. It is not a job for Joe Six Pack and his Glock, out shopping on a Saturday afternoon in the malls.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1710 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 23):
. Chances are the civilian would be either dead or,

That civilian may be dead anyway. Don't just look at this shooting. My guess, is that if this wasn't a "gang-related" shoot-out, it was just some sick guy looking to get a reaction or just wanted to see what it felt like to shoot people.

This appears to have been planned so that the shooter(s) could get away. A couple of seconds of shooting and fade away. There is just about no way to defend against this, nor stop it when it starts.

The real ugly happens when the shooter starts to hunt.

Look at Aurora, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Nickel Mines, Fort Hood, etc. These are all places where an immediate armed response may have resulted in less deaths.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 23):

What does work is having paramilitary types, exquistly trained, highly alert and always kept abreast of posible threats. Israel has gone and done that, posting military types in civilian clothes to protect schools

In Israel, it is a national security matter. Here, in the US, it is a criminal matter. Now, if we can tie some of these shootings to a larger, national security threat, e.g. terrorists making random attacks through-out the country, you can make a case that the military should be involved.

Speaking of military and/or para-military police forces: have they started going door to door searching homes in New Orleans? I mean, this guy is still a threat, isn't he? Instead of an indiscriminate shooter, he could have easily been an indiscriminate killer, with a few aimed shots.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1701 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 12):
Street gangs and the NRA have nothing to do with each other.

Except that the policies of one help the policies of the other, and vice versa.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1698 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24):
Look at Aurora, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Nickel Mines, Fort Hood, etc. These are all places where an immediate armed response may have resulted in less deaths.

Or more deaths, just saying.

Guns everywhere promoters constantly state that if people had been allowed to carry then this and that shooting would not have happened, or less people would have been injured/dead. Why is it that in a state that is shall issue and allow open carry they did not manage to stop this guy?

When the guns everywhere promoters claim that one incident in a gun free zone indicate that gun control doesn't work how isn't this an example of that arming civilians doesn't work?

And how did the shooter get the weapon(s) used?


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1706 times:

So this is what you get in a violent society that is the U.S.A. Yeah, lets all get guns for protection. Where you guys with your guns to prevent this from happening.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11796 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1703 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 12):
Street gangs and the NRA have nothing to do with each other.

They sure do! NRA Is defending the right to carry and use guns any where, any time and street gangs are exercising that right.

I didn't surprise me New Orleans had a Mother's Day parade. They like parades and parties, so why not? It also, unfortunately, didn't surprise me there was a shooting there. What did surprise me is: no one was killed.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 27):
So this is what you get in a violent society that is the U.S.A. Yeah, lets all get guns for protection. Where you guys with your guns to prevent this from happening.

Just a question: Was any of the victims (or the shooter) a member of the NRA?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):

They sure do! NRA Is defending the right to carry and use guns any where, any time and street gangs are exercising that right.

Absolutely. If an individual had no priors, than yes, the NRA is in fact rabidly in favor of that person carrying a gun around, even if they're in a Gang. It's not hard to see that the NRA favors arming Gangs.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 30):
Absolutely. If an individual had no priors, than yes, the NRA is in fact rabidly in favor of that person carrying a gun around, even if they're in a Gang.

LOL, now that's a stretch. Can anyone recall a gang member who was also an NRA member?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
Can anyone recall a gang member who was also an NRA member?

First, are saying that this is impossible?



Second, would they have to be?

The NRA is unambiguously in favor of and lobbies with criminal aggression for as many people to have as many guns as possible. Gang members without felonies are indeed better able to commit violent crimes because of the NRA's actions.

And since you bring it up, even felon Gang members are better off by the NRA's actions in that the NRA opposes background checks and lobbies to keep it easy for un-backgrounded private sales to continue.

If I were a Gang member, I'd be an NRA member too. Funny who you find yourself in bed with sometimes Dreadnought.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
Or more deaths, just saying.

Yup, it's certainly possible. What we do know, as facts that the in the incidents I cited:

-all were in gun free zones, (with the possible exception of Nickel Mines),
-that no one other than the shooter produced a firearm
-that the shooting (and killing) stopped when the shooter was confronted or pursued by armed personnel

Just saying.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
They sure do! NRA Is defending the right to carry and use guns any where, any time and street gangs are exercising that right.

Show me exactly where the NRA endorses arming anyone in a gang.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
What did surprise me is: no one was killed.

I'm not sure I'm surprised about that. It was indiscriminate, un-aimed shooting. I wonder what the forensics reports will say about the trajectory of the bullets. All fired too low to hit vitals? I don't know. Definitely an undisciplined attack. Like I said, it looked more like someone trying to get a reaction.

Sick.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
LOL, now that's a stretch. Can anyone recall a gang member who was also an NRA member?

A stretch is to suggest a gang member must be a NRA member to benefit from NRA's actions. But can you guarantee that no gang member is or have been a NRA member?

More importantly, can you guarantee that NRA actions have not resulted in gang members gaining access to weapons? How about other criminals?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1638 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 34):
More importantly, can you guarantee that NRA actions have not resulted in gang members gaining access to weapons? How about other criminals?

That's like asking to guarantee that AAA's advocacy hasn't resulted in more car accidents.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1633 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
Show me exactly where the NRA endorses arming anyone in a gang.

They'll never publicly say that, of course. But there's no question that the positions that they push make it very easy for gangs to obtain weapons through legal sales. And they seem to have no problem with that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 35):
That's like asking to guarantee that AAA's advocacy hasn't resulted in more car accidents.

How do you figure that? Very limited knowledge about AAA so look forward to see you tell me what laws they have promoted that equal the laws NRA promote.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1622 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 34):
A stretch is to suggest a gang member must be a NRA member to benefit from NRA's actions. But can you guarantee that no gang member is or have been a NRA member?

More importantly, can you guarantee that NRA actions have not resulted in gang members gaining access to weapons? How about other criminals?

No more than you can admit to me that generally well-meaning social programs for the poor have not resulted in increasing urban blight, explosions in teen pregnancy, and an ongoing cycle of poverty.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1615 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
No more than you can admit to me that generally well-meaning social programs for the poor have not resulted in increasing urban blight, explosions in teen pregnancy, and an ongoing cycle of poverty.

No idea how this is relevant to this discussion? Why the move away from the topic at hand?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):
How do you figure that? Very limited knowledge about AAA so look forward to see you tell me what laws they have promoted that equal the laws NRA promote.

Let's see, AAA provides insurance, so does the NRA.
AAA provides training, so does the NRA.
AAA advocates for better rules and regulations that make it easier for automobile owners to own and operate their vehicles, the NRA does the same for gun owners (and non-gun owners).
AAA is an advocacy group just like the NRA.
AAA will provide training to felons so that they can learn to drive, my guess is that an NRA instructor would boot a person from the class if he found out he was a felon.

I suspect that AAA has put more killers on the road than the NRA has.

They are more similar than different.

[Edited 2013-05-14 18:02:08]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
I suspect that AAA has put more killers on the road than the NRA has.

In what state does attending a couple hours of AAA training mean you get your license?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
my guess is that an NRA instructor would boot a person from the class if he found out he was a felon.

Then why did NRA support the The Firearm Owners' Protection Act?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 41):
Then why did NRA support the The Firearm Owners' Protection Act?

From Wiki:

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act lists the following as prohibited from owning a firearm:

Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed. [10] [11]
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state and/or has been granted a waiver from the Attorney General.
Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment.)
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[12]
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

So what are you talking about? In fact it sounds like if these restrictions were enforced the vast majority of gun violence would disappear. Ergo, no new laws needed, just enforce the existing ones.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Firearm Owners' Protection Act

Don't try to change topic again. You have outstanding claims to support.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1555 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Don't try to change topic again.

You brought it up and asked a direct question (or rather, an implication).

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
You have outstanding claims to support.

Do I? Pls specify.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1544 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44):
Do I? Pls specify.

This

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 30):
Absolutely. If an individual had no priors, than yes, the NRA is in fact rabidly in favor of that person carrying a gun around, even if they're in a Gang.

You connecting it with a gang member being a NRA member doesn't answer the question. Interestingly DarkSnowyNight's statements connects back to parts of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act you didn't include in your later post.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
This

I suggest you ask Snowy why he thinks "the NRA is in fact rabidly in favor of that person carrying a gun around, even if they're in a Gang". I find the argument ludicrous.

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
You connecting it with a gang member being a NRA member doesn't answer the question.

I implied the opposite. NRA members tend to be exceedingly responsible with their guns. It is very rare for NRA members to be found committing gun-related crimes, compared to the general population. If you ever attended an NRA class, 95% of the class is dedicated to responsibility and understanding what the law allows you to do and not to do.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):

I suggest you ask Snowy why he thinks "the NRA is in fact rabidly in favor of that person carrying a gun around, even if they're in a Gang". I find the argument ludicrous.

Your response to his statement certainly was ludicrous.

What he stated is very straight forward. That because NRA is against every form of gun control they make it easy for those who should not have weapons to get them. Was it ever made clear where David Michael Keene got his weapon and if his father knew he had it?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
I implied the opposite. NRA members tend to be exceedingly responsible with their guns. It is very rare for NRA members to be found committing gun-related crimes, compared to the general population. If you ever attended an NRA class, 95% of the class is dedicated to responsibility and understanding what the law allows you to do and not to do.

I did not imply you suggested gang members are NRA members. But your statement that NRA members commit less gun related crimes than the general population is another ludicrous statement. The general population does not own guns and thus are extremely unlikely to commit gun related crimes.

But to bring it back to the point. It doesn't matter what NRA members do themselves when their actions is what enables other gun owners to do things they should not do. This is what DarkSnowyNight was referring to. The result of NRA's actions. Not just when a NRA member is holding the gun during a crime.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
In fact it sounds like if these restrictions were enforced the vast majority of gun violence would disappear. Ergo, no new laws needed, just enforce the existing ones.

That argument went very stale a very long time ago. Yeah, a list of all the people who aren't supposed to have guns is great, but unless they're forced to wear clothes that say "I'm a felon" or "I got a dishonorable discharge" or anything else that would identify them as restricted from owning a gun, they can just walk into a gun show and buy plenty of guns from an honest seller without the seller being any the wiser. Or you'd have a dishonest seller who knew the buyer was a felon, but proving that the seller knew is virtually impossible. Thus, the law is pretty much unenforceable, and it's all thanks to other laws that the NRA has lobbied for (and continues to lobby for).

If we had a background check law, then the honest seller would know that the person he's about to sell to is a felon, and he presumably wouldn't make the sale. And the dishonest seller would have a very hard time claiming that he had no idea that the buyer was a felon if he had a background check stating such. That would actually make the law enforceable. But the NRA said no.

So don't try and tell me the NRA just wants the existing laws to be enforced. They've not only not tried to help in that cause, they've actively worked against it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 47):
Your response to his statement certainly was ludicrous.

What he stated is very straight forward. That because NRA is against every form of gun control they make it easy for those who should not have weapons to get them.

Check your history. The NRA was a supporter of key gun control legislation since the 1930s, particularly to control the gang wars of the time (eg Al Capone). They also supported gun control legislation through the 80s which (as listed above). Historically, the NRA has been against two things - 1) Anti-gun laws written by the Absolutists (the "all guns are bad" crowd), and 2) In the old days of racial segregation and Jim Crowe, laws which would restrict the rights of blacks to own guns (Since the 1870s, one of the key priorities of the NRA was to arm newly freed black people and train them to defend themselves from the likes of the KKK)

I think you would find that if laws were proposed that specifically targeted those people who should not be armed, they might be much more willing to play ball. But when you treat all gun owners as potential madmen and criminals, you won't get anything but blockage from them.

And by the way, I'm not an NRA member, and don't always agree with them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 47):
I did not imply you suggested gang members are NRA members. But your statement that NRA members commit less gun related crimes than the general population is another ludicrous statement. The general population does not own guns and thus are extremely unlikely to commit gun related crimes.

Oh, so now you are saying that only NRA members own guns, and nobody else owns any guns.

Pretty good stuff you are smoking...

Quoting cmf (Reply 47):
But to bring it back to the point. It doesn't matter what NRA members do themselves when their actions is what enables other gun owners to do things they should not do. This is what DarkSnowyNight was referring to. The result of NRA's actions. Not just when a NRA member is holding the gun during a crime.

How can you blame the NRA? They have proven through their history to be amenable to sensible regulations. Propose some.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 47):
The general population does not own guns and thus are extremely unlikely to commit gun related crimes.

There are estimates that 30% - 40% of all households in the US have guns in them. I'll suggest that does equate to the general population.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
And by the way, I'm not an NRA member, and don't always agree with them.

I am an NRA Life Member and I don't always agree with their position. And, I will tend to let them know when I think they're wrong.

Who does agree with every position of an advocacy group they support?

Quoting Mir (Reply 48):
But the NRA said no.

The NRA said no because the bill had problems. As usual, The Congress tried to cover every base and made the bill, and its compliance and enforcement, cumbersome.

The primary issues, in my mind are the provisions around lending, not selling, a firearm for sport shooting or hunting.

And, as I've said before, the NRA is very wary of the "camel's nose". Any legislation is a step towards an outright ban. They may or may not be right, but that's their position.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1488 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
Let's see, AAA provides insurance, so does the NRA.
AAA provides training, so does the NRA.
AAA advocates for better rules and regulations that make it easier for automobile owners to own and operate their vehicles, the NRA does the same for gun owners (and non-gun owners).
AAA is an advocacy group just like the NRA.
AAA will provide training to felons so that they can learn to drive, my guess is that an NRA instructor would boot a person from the class if he found out he was a felon.

Does AAA advocate the removal of Licensing Drivers?
Does AAA advocate the removal of Liability Insurance Requirements for Drivers?
Does AAA advocate the removal of Registering Automobiles operated on Public Highways?
Does AAA advocate the removal of Restricting the Classes of Vehicles allowed on Public Highways?

I don't see how anyone can call these comparable organizations. They're clearly not.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
How can you blame the NRA? They have proven through their history to be amenable to sensible regulations. Propose some.

We just did, and you guys lobbied against what 90% of Americans wanted. The NRA is in no way, amenable to responsibility.

You guys couldn't even agree that straw purchasing for ineligible parties is a bad thing.

Quoting cmf (Reply 47):
The result of NRA's actions. Not just when a NRA member is holding the gun during a crime.

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say, though I'll credit you with doing a better job.

When the NRA directly interferes with legislation designed to restrict the sale of weapons to people that shouldn't have them, they are hardly blameless.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Missed this:

Quoting Mir (Reply 48):
So don't try and tell me the NRA just wants the existing laws to be enforced. They've not only not tried to help in that cause, they've actively worked against it.

How?

It seems to me that this administration (and prior ones) have failed to enforce the current laws. Something like 48,000 people in 2010have been stopped from purchasing a gun via the NICS system (read that as fraudulently tried to purchase a firearm by lying on ATF Form 4473). That is a federal crime. How many were prosecuted by the US Attorney General? A grand total of 44.

According to Vice President Biden:

According to an interview that Baker gave with the Daily Caller, he said that Biden told him, “regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

Really? I thought reducing gun crime was a national priority.

The NRA has been pushing for better enforcement for [b]decades[/]. Here's an article (published by the NRA) calling for stronger enforcement and more prosecutions under existing (at the time) federal law. It is dated Oct. 17, 2000.

So, please, enough of the :


Quoting Mir (Reply 48):
So don't try and tell me the NRA just wants the existing laws to be enforced. They've not only not tried to help in that cause, they've actively worked against it.

Because, that is simply not true.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 52):
Something like 48,000 people in 2010have been stopped from purchasing a gun via the NICS system (read that as fraudulently tried to purchase a firearm by lying on ATF Form 4473). That is a federal crime. How many were prosecuted by the US Attorney General? A grand total of 44.

Prosecuting people for checking an incorrect box on a form or that legitimately answers a question inaccurately is a huge waste of already limited resources - Biden is absolutely correct on that. Prosecuting people who lie on a form is more worthwhile, but again you have the problem of resources. Quite simply, ATF doesn't have enough manpower to do its job properly given the restrictions placed upon it by the law.

Keep in mind that the NRA pushed legislation to require the director of ATF to be confirmed by the Senate, and since then (going back to the Bush years) there hasn't been a permanent director, and thus the organization is left drifting with no solid direction or leadership. They're prohibited by law from doing spot inspections on dealers more than once a year. They're prohibited from doing database searches to track guns (which would be a very good way to improve efficiency and better utilize manpower). Their budget has been stagnant compared to the budgets of other law enforcement agencies. They have the same level of staffing now as they did a decade ago. And yet the NRA and gun rights groups somehow expect them to do their job better. It's laughable, really.

And I don't really see why there's such a big thing about going after people who weren't supposed to be able to buy guns and were prevented from buying them. That's a good outcome, after all. It's the people who aren't supposed to be able to buy guns but get them anyway that we need to be going after, along with the people who sell to them (except that there are other laws that make that difficult, as I mentioned earlier).

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 52):
The NRA has been pushing for better enforcement for [b]decades[/].

Actions speak louder than words.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 53):
And I don't really see why there's such a big thing about going after people who weren't supposed to be able to buy guns and were prevented from buying them. That's a good outcome, after all.

Yes, it is a good outcome. But, again, those people lied on a federal form and the crime is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. These aren't folks that checked the wrong box, these are folks that lied in an attempt to get a gun. Yes, the lie was caught and they failed in their endeavor. Yeah, the system worked, but the follow-up should have been a visit by any one of the numerous alphabet agencies tasked with law enforcement by the federal government. And, that has not happened.

Yet, we say that more background checks (which I am a fan of) will result in less crime. No, it will result in more denials (good thing) and an even smaller percentage of people being prosecuted for lying to the federal government.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

The NRA, IMO, should sponsor legislation themselves that address these issues. They've been pretty vague in what they've been saying so far. I'm on the "the NRA is not sinister" side of the fence but I think they've been doing a bad job lately. If they have good ideas (and through all the muck lately they have presented some good ideas) they need to convey it better or work to help sponsor a bill.

I can see that they are wary of a random or questionable provision thrown in the bill, so if that's the case, make your own clean, untainted version and I guarantee you it'll pass



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11796 posts, RR: 15
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1465 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
Can anyone recall a gang member who was also an NRA member?

What does being a member of a private organization have to do with the Constitution? I am not a member of any religious organization, yet I enjoy the benefit of "freedom of religion".

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
Show me exactly where the NRA endorses arming anyone in a gang.

Because NRA is against any gun legislation. NRA does not want background checks for private sales. In fact, from what NRA leaders say, they want everyone to have guns.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1451 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 56):
In fact, from what NRA leaders say, they want everyone to have guns.

Citation? Please show me where the NRA says that folks ineligible to own a firearm under 18USC922 should be allowed to own firearms.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 57):
Citation? Please show me where the NRA says that folks ineligible to own a firearm under 18USC922 should be allowed to own firearms.

Forget it. The NRA wants dead children from stray fire. They dance at the altar of random shootings. Anyone who appreciates the Second Amendment revels in the idea of mentally ill or simply fame (or infamy)-seeking whackjobs shooting schools.

You just can't convince certain people who feel you are barely better than Satan because you don't agree with their views.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 56):
What does being a member of a private organization have to do with the Constitution? I am not a member of any religious organization, yet I enjoy the benefit of "freedom of religion".

And, even though you are not a gun owner (assumption on my part), you enjoy the benefits of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
But, again, those people lied on a federal form and the crime is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. These aren't folks that checked the wrong box, these are folks that lied in an attempt to get a gun. Yes, the lie was caught and they failed in their endeavor. Yeah, the system worked, but the follow-up should have been a visit by any one of the numerous alphabet agencies tasked with law enforcement by the federal government. And, that has not happened.

And if we had a government with infinite resources, then they'd be properly prosecuted. But I don't think you'd want a government with infinite resources. That's why the "just enforce the current rules" argument is such a strawman - the NRA has no desire (as evidenced by their legislative efforts) to let ATF have the resources necessary to do what they want it to do, nor do they have any desire to make those same laws any easier to enforce.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
Yet, we say that more background checks (which I am a fan of) will result in less crime. No, it will result in more denials (good thing)

More denials means fewer criminals getting guns. I fail to see how that wouldn't have a negative impact on gun crime (negative in the sense that gun crime would go down).

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
and an even smaller percentage of people being prosecuted for lying to the federal government.

Are we trying to do something about gun crime, or trying to do something about people lying to the federal government? Both are wrong, but one is a lot more serous than the other. If the goal really is to do something about gun crime, then I would suggest that going after people who weren't able to buy guns is not a very good use of resources.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 60):

Are we trying to do something about gun crime, or trying to do something about people lying to the federal government?

The person that can't get a gun through legal means (you know, the one who falsified his Form 4473 and got bounced by NICS) will now go out and spend a little more money (maybe) and get one through nefarious means.

But, had the federal government done its job and prosecuted the falsification of a government form, that person would not be on the street with an illegally obtained weapon, would he?

The straw man is that we need more gun laws because the laws we have are ineffective.

How about we try enforcing the law and prosecuting those that break it before we decide the law is ineffective?

[Edited 2013-05-15 13:41:15]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 61):
The person that can't get a gun through legal means (you know, the one who falsified his Form 4473 and got bounced by NICS) will now go out and spend a little more money (maybe) and get one through nefarious means.

Or they go to a gun show and get one through legal means. Which some of them would probably do in the first place, and you seem perfectly content to turn a blind eye to that. That's where people who shouldn't be able to get guns could actually get guns, and that's where attention should get focused (and if there's spare manpower to step up prosecutions on people who falsify forms, then great).

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 61):
But, had the federal government done its job and prosecuted the falsification of a government form, that person would not be on the street with an illegally obtained weapon, would he?

You're discounting the difficulty involved in proving that someone knowingly and willingly falsified the form. All they have to say is "I checked the wrong box, your honor, I'm sorry." It's not easy for a prosecutor to prove otherwise unless the person in question got very careless.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1374 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 62):

You're discounting the difficulty involved in proving that someone knowingly and willingly falsified the form. All they have to say is "I checked the wrong box, your honor, I'm sorry." It's not easy for a prosecutor to prove otherwise unless the person in question got very careless.

Believe it or not, I have bought several firearms over the years (gasp). In fact, I bought one this morning (S&W M&P Shield in .40) that I ordered in February and I filled out the form. Before the dealer went back to run the NICS check, he went over the form with me and then asked me to sign it. This has happened every time I have purchased a firearm since NICS was established.

To me, prosecution is easy.
-Did you sign the form? Yes.
-Mr. Dealer, did you review the form with the applicant? Yes.

Quoting Mir (Reply 62):
and you seem perfectly content to turn a blind eye to that

I'm for expanded background checks, but you can conveniently leave that out.

Quoting Mir (Reply 62):
Or they go to a gun show and get one through legal means.

But, any dealer that is an FFL is required to run a NICS check whether at a gun show or not when they sell a gun from their stock. You conveniently forget that too, don't you?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1372 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):

But, any dealer that is an FFL is required to run a NICS check whether at a gun show or not when they sell a gun from their stock. You conveniently forget that too, don't you?

Gun show loophole is a pretty poor term. I think he's talking about private sales, though all the guns shows I've been to required private sales to get checked out.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1364 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
To me, prosecution is easy.
-Did you sign the form? Yes.
-Mr. Dealer, did you review the form with the applicant? Yes.

If I'm not mistaken, the dealer has no obligation to review the form with the applicant (I saw nothing in the instructions on the 4473 form requiring it, nor is there a space for the dealer to certify that he did so). So if the dealer says "no, I'm not required to review it, I just submitted the background check with the information he gave me", then what?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
I'm for expanded background checks, but you can conveniently leave that out.

You are correct, and I apologize. Let me amend my statement: the NRA is not for it. In other words, the NRA explicitly supports a means of criminals to purchase guns that circumvents effective enforcement of existing law. Which makes it very hard to claim that they are really for enforcement of existing law (and that's where this whole conversation came about, so that's what I had in my mind as I was writing that post).

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
But, any dealer that is an FFL is required to run a NICS check whether at a gun show or not when they sell a gun from their stock. You conveniently forget that too, don't you?

No, that's one's not a mistake. There are more than just FFLs at gun shows.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):
Gun show loophole is a pretty poor term. I think he's talking about private sales

Correct. And it is a very poor term, but it's become common use, so I used it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):
though all the guns shows I've been to required private sales to get checked out.

Laws on this vary by state (or certain shows may require it even if state law does not). But there are lots of shows out there where you can buy from a "private seller" (the definition of which can be very vague) without having to get checked out.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1336 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 65):
If I'm not mistaken, the dealer has no obligation to review the form with the applicant

Yup, there is no requirement. I can only go by personal experience. So far, across the 3 states that I have lived in and all the guns I've purchased over the last 15 or so years, that process has been 100%. Does everyone do it? We'll never know until we start prosecuting those that attempt to get a firearm, fraudulently.

Quoting Mir (Reply 65):
No, that's one's not a mistake. There are more than just FFLs at gun shows.

Yes, there are. The non-FFL's are usually the guys walking around with a rifle or 2 or 3 slung across their backs with a sign sticking out the barrel that says "for sale". I've seen a couple of guys with 2 or 3 holstered hand guns on their belt.

Quoting Mir (Reply 65):

Correct. And it is a very poor term, but it's become common use, so I used it.

Yup, lost the language battle there too. I wonder when we will learn that language matters?

Quoting Mir (Reply 65):
"private seller" (the definition of which can be very vague)

What's vague about it? A person who is not an FFL selling his firearm. I guess an FFL can be a private seller if he transfers a firearm (fills out a 4473) to his personal collection and sells it. I'm sure it happens. Those are the folks I would keep an eye on when I audit their records if I were the ATF.

But the term "private seller" is certainly not vague.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1321 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 66):
Does everyone do it? We'll never know until we start prosecuting those that attempt to get a firearm, fraudulently.

But ultimately it doesn't matter as long as there's no legal requirement to do it. It's nice to know, but it's not going to help prosecutions any. Unless you were going to make it a legal requirement, which would be a relatively simple and effective change.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 66):
What's vague about it? A person who is not an FFL selling his firearm.

Straight from the NRA's mouth:

If you are “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, then you must have an FFL. Otherwise, every single sale would be a serious federal felony. Federal law defines “engaged in the business” as repeated transactions for profit. In contrast, a person is not engaged in the business of dealing in firearms if he or she makes “occasional sales, exchanges or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms. …” 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(c).

http://www.nrapublications.org/index...nder-what-a-loophole-looks-like/2/

What constitutes an "occasional sale"? Does someone who goes to three or four gun shows per year and sells qualify as an "occasional" seller? What about ten or twelve gun shows? What about someone who regularly sells and buys guns on weekends, traveling around to various shows in their state? Isn't that starting to sound like someone who is engaged in the business of selling firearms?

Really, the only clear-cut line you have is the ability to buy or sell across state lines, which an FFL can do and a private seller can't. But that isn't really significant when traffickers are perfectly capable of doing the transporting across state lines, and it's tough to prosecute them because without a sale record there's no way to prove where that gun came from.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1315 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 67):
Isn't that starting to sound like someone who is engaged in the business of selling firearms?

If the person does not have an FFL, then he is a private seller. STOP. If the ATF or whatever alphabet agency decides that his level of activity constitutes a commercial business and they can prove it in court or in front of an administrative law judge, then the person should be held accountable.

Again, it's up to the government to enforce the law.

Quoting Mir (Reply 67):
But ultimately it doesn't matter as long as there's no legal requirement to do it.

Yup, no legal requirement. So, what you're, in essence saying, is that background checks are useless and should be done away with.

Again, if the federal government refuses to enforce the laws that are currently on the books, what are additional laws going to do?

If a law: can not, will not or should not be enforced, it should be repealed.

You and Vice-President Biden are telling me that the federal government is either incapable of unwilling to enforce the law as it pertains to the certification(s) a potential buyer makes on ATF 4473. Then the law should be repealed and we should move on.

Enforce the current laws. Prosecute people who fraudulently fill out the form.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1306 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
Check your history. The NRA was a supporter of key gun control legislation since the 1930s, particularly to control the gang wars of the time (eg Al Capone). They also supported gun control legislation through the 80s which (as listed above). Historically, the NRA has been against two things - 1) Anti-gun laws written by the Absolutists (the "all guns are bad" crowd), and 2) In the old days of racial segregation and Jim Crowe, laws which would restrict the rights of blacks to own guns (Since the 1870s, one of the key priorities of the NRA was to arm newly freed black people and train them to defend themselves from the likes of the KKK)

Check history  Unfortunately for your argument history is something that I am very interested in and thus is very familiar with how people rewrite history to suit their cause. So using your selective way of using history I could question why you reference the outstanding Al Capone who supported soup kitchens, paid for peoples medical expenses when they couldn't themselves and was behind expiration dates on milk bottles to protect children. How can you accuse someone with a history of such act to be a gangster when you suggest NRA actions in supporting blacks cause mean NRA they are not doing bad things today...

Where you are right is that historically NRA supported a lot of sensible gun control but starting in the 70's this has changed and today they very often actively work against sensible gun control. They changed. That they did good things in the past doesn't mean they do good things today. Why your highlight of past good doesn't mean anything. Personally I think many of the NRA members of the past turn in their graves over what NRA do today.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
Oh, so now you are saying that only NRA members own guns, and nobody else owns any guns.

Pretty good stuff you are smoking...

How dare you accuse me of smoking when you make logical somersaults. Not that I didn't expect it from you. It is your SOP.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
How can you blame the NRA? They have proven through their history to be amenable to sensible regulations. Propose some.

How can I not blame NRA for their actions today? A simple example of today's NRA. First they sound bite - it is people, not the gun. Then they go out and blame video games...

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 50):
There are estimates that 30% - 40% of all households in the US have guns in them. I'll suggest that does equate to the general population.

So 30% to 40% is more representative than 60% to 70%...   

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 50):
The NRA said no because the bill had problems. As usual, The Congress tried to cover every base and made the bill, and its compliance and enforcement, cumbersome.

Oh please. NRA is all about making every gun law cumbersome to enforce. Essentially their SOP is: Make sure every law has a loophole. Remove funding for enforcement. Complain that the existing laws are not enforced.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 52):
The NRA has been pushing for better enforcement

Isn't it funny how the NRA message now is that gun laws don't make sense because criminals will get guns anyway....

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 52):
Because, that is simply not true.

It most certainly is true. Just look at what they did this year. Being nothing but obstinate instead of working for adjusting gun laws to make them clear and enforceable.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
Yet, we say that more background checks (which I am a fan of)

And NRA is working against.

I would love to see them go after everyone being denied. I am not naive enough to think that every denial should result in a prosecution but I do think there are plenty of cases where it should and isn't today.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 57):
Citation? Please show me where the NRA says that folks ineligible to own a firearm under 18USC922 should be allowed to own firearms.

You apply wrong logic. Look at bringing more guns to schools.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 58):
You just can't convince certain people who feel you are barely better than Satan because you don't agree with their views.

One standard for what you do. A different standard when other people do what you do...   

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 59):
you enjoy the benefits of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Lets just ignore the detriments...

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 61):
The person that can't get a gun through legal means (you know, the one who falsified his Form 4473 and got bounced by NICS) will now go out and spend a little more money (maybe) and get one through nefarious means.

A little more? From what I understand the rate is 3 to 4 times more... And this is under current conditions where supply is plenty, almost unlimited.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1300 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
If the person does not have an FFL, then he is a private seller. STOP.

And that's exactly why background checks need to be expanded to private sellers as well. When a person can do almost everything that an FFL can do, but not have to abide by the requirements of an FFL, simply because he chooses not to call himself an FFL, that's a gaping hole in the law (and a gaping hole in the ability of the government to enforce the law).

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Yup, no legal requirement. So, what you're, in essence saying, is that background checks are useless and should be done away with.

No, I was talking about a requirement for dealers to review background check applications, not the background check itself. If there's no requirement for a dealer to review an application, then the fact that some do isn't going to help prosecute someone who says they made an honest mistake when filling out the form, even if they were willingly lying.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Again, if the federal government refuses to enforce the laws that are currently on the books, what are additional laws going to do?

Make the existing laws actually enforceable, rather than making prosecutors face such a high standard of proof that people would have to really screw up in order to make those cases worth the use of the limited resources that the government has.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
If a law: can not, will not or should not be enforced, it should be repealed.

I agree. It should be repealed and replaced (or, more simply, amended) with a law that is enforceable. In this case, a law that requires dealers to review background check forms with buyers before submitting it, and that requires private sellers to conduct background checks on buyers. And then you'd have a law that was actually enforceable, and that would actually help reduce gun crime.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Enforce the current laws. Prosecute people who fraudulently fill out the form.

And that will stop criminals who buy their guns from private sellers (i.e. how most crime guns end up being bought) how?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
You apply wrong logic. Look at bringing more guns to schools.

No, my logic is sound. Seb said:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 56):
In fact, from what NRA leaders say, they want everyone to have guns.

And I asked for a citation where the NRA has advocated for abatement of 18USC922.

As for guns in school...exactly what is the problem with a concealed carry permit holder (you know, someone who has passed background checks, proven proficiency to the state (as the case may be), paid his fees, jumped the legal hurdles, etc.) with carrying a gun on school property? Will a school somehow make that person snap? Will the kids running around spur some long dormant instinct to gun them down. Of course not. GFSZ's are more feel good legislation from people afflicted with "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" syndrome.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
Lets just ignore the detriments...

Who said anything about ignoring the detriments. Let's look at the Bill of Rights. Which one is the most regulated? Which one has a slew of provisions for which a legal permanent resident of the US must pass before he can exercise it? We don't ignore the detriments, they are addressed in the USC and in the various state codes.

Quoting Mir (Reply 70):
And that will stop criminals who buy their guns from private sellers (i.e. how most crime guns end up being bought) how?

Let's see: if we prosecute and convict someone who has fraudulently filled out the form, he goes to jail (again?) and is off the street and unable to buy a gun from a private seller in order to commit a crime.

According to the 2010 numbers, someone had a mere .06% chance of getting a visit from a federal agent for attempting to buy a firearm when he was prohibited from doing so by federal law. How about we bump that up so that it is an effective deterrent.

Quoting Mir (Reply 70):
And then you'd have a law that was actually enforceable, and that would actually help reduce gun crime.

They don't enforce it now. What makes you think they'll enforce it when they have thousands more fraudulent forms to deal with? Will we suddenly have more of the resources VP Biden says we don't have?

No, the government will continue to say they need more laws. That the current laws are ineffective.

Well, guess what? Any law you don't enforce is ineffective.

This is where I grudgingly agree with the NRA: you give the government an inch they will demand the foot, then the mile.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1286 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
They don't enforce it now. What makes you think they'll enforce it when they have thousands more fraudulent forms to deal with? Will we suddenly have more of the resources VP Biden says we don't have?

No, the standard of proof will be less, so the same resources will be able to be more effective.

Though I'm still wondering why the emphasis is being placed on prosecuting people who don't manage to obtain firearms rather than those who do. And I'm still wondering how letting people who are prohibited from owning guns buy them whenever they want so long as the seller doesn't want to be a FFL could be a policy of any organization that would claim to want to stop prohibited people from owning guns.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
And I asked for a citation where the NRA has advocated for abatement of 18USC922.

You really like to be literal whenever it suits you and very broad when that suits you. When you make his statement to mean ignoring 18USC922 you make a such a big logical jump that must be a considered attempt at avoiding his point.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
As for guns in school...exactly what is the problem

What is good about having more weapons there? What is good about having poorly trained people who either have a weapon because of fear or because they are self assigned heroes in the making.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
GFSZ's are more feel good legislation from people afflicted with "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" syndrome

Much better than having the lets bring loaded weapon syndrome.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
Who said anything about ignoring the detriments. Let's look at the Bill of Rights. Which one is the most regulated? Which one has a slew of provisions for which a legal permanent resident of the US must pass before he can exercise it? We don't ignore the detriments, they are addressed in the USC and in the various state codes.

What does most regulated have to do with it? And I very much doubt it is. Looking forward to see you back up that statement  

Also look forward to see you explain how detriments are addressed. How do I know I can walk down the road and not be confronted by a weapon stolen because someone failed to store their weapon properly? How do I know that none of the people in the bar isn't going to pull a weapon after drinking too much and ignoring what they were taught during the few hours of training. Not an unusual event. I can go on but you will probably not address them just as you didn't address most of the points in my previous post.

Quoting Mir (Reply 72):
And I'm still wondering how letting people who are prohibited from owning guns buy them whenever they want so long as the seller doesn't want to be a FFL could be a policy of any organization that would claim to want to stop prohibited people from owning guns.

We all know the answer to this. It is all about isolating every problem to something else that isn't 100% perfect and make it take the blame so as not to address bigger problems they fear will possibly affect them in some way no matter how minute, NRA and extreme gunners SOP.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 72):
Though I'm still wondering why the emphasis is being placed on prosecuting people who don't manage to obtain firearms rather than those who do.

Because I would like to stop them before they get a hold of a gun. I'd like to stop them when they're in the "hmmm, let's see if I can get a gun" phase of their planning. Apparently, in 2010 about 48,000 people tried to go this route and were stopped. How many of those ultimately succeeded in getting a gun? We know that 44 (06%) probably didn't. What about the others?

I would much rather stop them before they get a gun then after. I think it's safer that way.

And, you know what? I'm the type of guy who wants anyone who is convicted of any crime while in possession of a firearm to do prison time. No exceptions. Does that happen now? I really don't know. I'm also the guy that says if you're caught with a firearm and you are ineligible to have one, you go to prison. Does that happen now?

Quoting Mir (Reply 72):
No, the standard of proof will be less, so the same resources will be able to be more effective.

.06% were prosecuted. Point-Zero-Six percent. You really think changing the law to say the dealer will go over each question with the buyer will make a whit of difference?

And just out of curiosity, have you seen the form and the questions that Mr. Biden is afraid people just check the wrong box on?

Here's the form. The questions are 11a - 11l. They are simple "Yes" or "No" questions and are in English, not lawyer-ese or government-speak. Of course, the clincher is Block 16.

Anyone who answers "No" to questions 11b - 11k and is bounced by NICS should be investigated and prosecuted, if warranted. That's not happening now. What makes you think it will happen if all sales are required to go through this process?

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
So 30% to 40% is more representative than 60% to 70%...

No, it is not. 30%-40% implies that people in the general population do own firearms. They are not concentrated in any one area or region. They are through-out the nation (except where prohibited by a paranoid state). I don't imply a majority.

[Edited 2013-05-16 14:03:25]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1267 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
No, it is not. 30%-40% implies that people in the general population do own firearms. They are not concentrated in any one area or region. They are through-out the nation (except where prohibited by a paranoid state). I don't imply a majority.

GENERAL
Affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread: "books of general interest".

I.e. the general population do not own fire arms. A sizable minority do.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1252 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
Because I would like to stop them before they get a hold of a gun. I'd like to stop them when they're in the "hmmm, let's see if I can get a gun" phase of their planning.

So would I.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
Apparently, in 2010 about 48,000 people tried to go this route and were stopped.

And thus, your goal of stopping them was achieved.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
How many of those ultimately succeeded in getting a gun? We know that 44 (06%) probably didn't. What about the others?

They might have tried the private route and gotten them there. Though if there were background checks there as well, then they'd have been stopped again. But the NRA doesn't want that.

Keep in mind that even if we did get more aggressive prosecuting paperwork violations at FFLs, you'd just see the criminals stop buying from dealers altogether and going right to private sellers. The end result is that you'd find yourself prosecuting mostly those who did make a legitimate mistake filling out the form (for whatever reason), and a couple of idiot criminals who aren't likely to be much of a threat anyway. Which is really not a good use of resources. That's why focusing on paperwork violations is such a silly idea - it's far better to go after the people that actually get guns, and the people who sell to them. That's where the real crime is.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
And, you know what? I'm the type of guy who wants anyone who is convicted of any crime while in possession of a firearm to do prison time. No exceptions. Does that happen now? I really don't know.

I don't know about prison time, but I do know that when I did my last jury duty, it was on a grand jury and we did hear cases involving illegal possession, some involving only illegal possession. So at least New York appears to be going after it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
You really think changing the law to say the dealer will go over each question with the buyer will make a whit of difference?

Yes, because it provides a corroboration to the idea that the buyer was being fraudulent. Without that, it's just a "he said, she said", and it's tough to get a conviction out of that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1215 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 76):
Keep in mind that even if we did get more aggressive prosecuting paperwork violations at FFLs

It's not a paperwork violation; it's a felony to lie on a federal form...or at least on the 4473.

Quoting Mir (Reply 76):
you'd just see the criminals stop buying from dealers altogether and going right to private sellers.

Which would make the practice more common, which would make the practice easier to police.

Quoting Mir (Reply 76):
and a couple of idiot criminals who aren't likely to be much of a threat anyway.

You mean like these guys:

http://news.yahoo.com/police-2nd-sus...html;_ylt=AwrNUbDCKZZR_2YAPPjQtDMD

Yeah, they're not a threat.

Don't get me wrong, I want the trafficker and straw buyer jailed. But, let's start enforcing the laws on the books right now. If enforcing the laws don't seem to make a dent in the issue, then we can look to adding or changing the laws.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1204 times:

Wow, my apologies. It appears my math was a little off. The percentage of folks prosecuted by the federal government in was .092%.

Sorry.

And, I wanted to add this article to the discussion.

According to these folks, since 1998 (NICS start) there have been ~169,200,000 background check run on prospective gun buyers. The system denied ~1,000,000 transfers.

The denials account for .59% of all background checks.

Now, I'm all for preventing those 1,000,000 transfers. People who should not have guns, should not be able to get them. But, I ask...how many of those ~1,000,000 denials resulted in a prosecution? In conviction?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1198 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
Which would make the practice more common, which would make the practice easier to police.

Sure. If there are actual rules in place to police private sales.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
It's not a paperwork violation; it's a felony to lie on a federal form...or at least on the 4473.

Indeed it is. And how do you prove they lied when they claim it was an honest mistake?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
Which would make the practice more common, which would make the practice easier to police.

Can't police something that isn't illegal. A private citizen selling a gun to a felon is completely legal as long as the citizen didn't know they were a felon. Which is even more difficult to prove that it is to prove that someone lied on a 4473.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
You mean like these guys:

Didn't see anything in that article as to where they got their guns from.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 77):
Don't get me wrong, I want the trafficker and straw buyer jailed.

Why doesn't the NRA? They've fought against legislation to stop both those things.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1186 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 79):
Sure. If there are actual rules in place to police private sales.

What I meant, was that when the straw buyers are forced to operate in the private sales arena, they will attract more attention. Where, right now, someone can try their luck with an FFL (if you read the form, you can see where a NICS isn't always required), if the federal government ever steps up their enforcement of the "lying on a form" felony, those buyers (and sellers) will have to start doing more business in the private arena. Therefore, exposing themselves more.

Quoting Mir (Reply 80):
Why doesn't the NRA?

Quite simply, the legislation proposed went beyond what the NRA was willing to concede to. What's wrong with that?

Everyone says that 90% of the people want background checks, but I wonder what happens when you ask the question:

Should a background check be required when a gun owner lends a gun to a friend for the purposes of practicing with that firearm?

Should a background check be required to lend a firearm to a friend for hunting?

Should a background check be required for an Uncle (Aunt) to give, as a gift, a firearm to a nephew (niece)?


I'm sure I can construct a couple of more if I study the bill a little more.

I think if you asked those questions, the folks saying yes would be lower.

But, you know what the real problem is: how is this enforceable without a registration? It is unenforceable (of course, it appears that enforcement isn't number one on Mr. Biden's list). What stops me from selling a gun to a friend, a neighbor, a family member or a stranger? Most of us will comply with the law, but those that are already doing this will not comply, so all you've done is added another burden to the law-abiding.

It's a step towards registration and that's why the NRA opposed it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
6 Shot In Baltimore posted Sun Jan 9 2011 03:10:01 by Mortyman
AZ Rep. Giffords Shot In Tuscon. posted Sat Jan 8 2011 12:07:53 by srbmod
Twin Sisters Shot In Head At Shooting Range, Wth? posted Wed Nov 17 2010 00:21:38 by Springbok747
Palin Willing To Give It A Shot In 2012 posted Fri Sep 17 2010 15:27:03 by mt99
2 More Police Officers Shot In Wash. State posted Tue Dec 22 2009 05:57:01 by FuturePilot16
2 Shot In LA Synagogue posted Thu Oct 29 2009 08:06:47 by JFK69
Failed Mention For Mother's Day? posted Sun May 10 2009 21:11:27 by FXramper
Policeman Shot In Athens Greece posted Mon Jan 5 2009 01:30:29 by MadameConcorde
Polish Man Awakens After 19 Yrs In Coma 1! posted Sat Jun 2 2007 19:39:53 by Alberchico
3 Shot In Troy Michigan Office Building posted Mon Apr 9 2007 18:02:05 by Luv2fly