meazza Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 well at least you'r enot stiucking to the bs line of argument that gunshows aren't filled with loopholes. glad to see you've abandoned the lie. I've never been to a gun show. How many guns used in violent crimes were used due to this loophole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 well at least you'r enot stiucking to the bs line of argument that gunshows aren't filled with loopholes. glad to see you've abandoned the lie. What is closing those loopholes going to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 stick your head a little further up there and you'll be viewing your cecum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 ah, so you haven't abandoned it. you likely know these laws more closely than I do. this is really tiresome. why not try a little intellectual honesty? it's actually admirable as I opposed to what you are. anyway, from my link: Under current rules, those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone "who 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." So it's not a "gun show" loophole. It's a "private transfer" loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 stick your head a little further up there and you'll be viewing your cecum. Well that's a real nice addition to the conversation. So first answer meazza's question then answer mine. So it's not a "gun show" loophole. It's a "private transfer" loophole. This is correct. Still not going to do much with regard to gun violence in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) Well that's a real nice addition to the conversation. So first answer meazza's question then answer mine. This is correct. Still not going to do much with regard to gun violence in the country. it's at least an equal contribution as your dishonest obfuscation is. Edited October 12, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 Shocking study: criminals generally don’t buy guns legally at gun shops Every time there is a mass shooting or any other criminal event involving guns there is a chorus of voices imploring us to think about the children and pass new background check laws or other restrictions on the purchase of firearms. It’s a touching story and one which gets the media all up in high dudgeon as they beseech us to help stop the violence. So how much of an impact will these laws have in terms of keeping the guns out of the hands of the bad guys? Yet another study (which will doubtless receive no attention in the mainstream media) has given us a fairly good idea of the answer to that question. Criminals aren’t buying their guns at Walmart, folks. (NRA-ILA) Nu merous studies conducted by academic researchers and by the federal government have shown that criminals do not use legal markets to obtain guns. And now we have more evidence of this reality, this time looking at criminals in Chicago. Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack conducted interviews with criminals being held in the Cook County Jail. Their primary findings were that criminals get guns from their “social network,” i.e. friends and persons known to them, but generally not from the various legal sources available to them. They do not buy guns in gun stores. They do not get guns at gun shows. They do not buy them from Internet sources. The study even found that criminals only rarely steal guns. The basic mechanics of this study are of interest because of the source material used. Let’s say you want to know where criminals are getting the guns they use in their crimes. I suppose you could do a national survey and ask people what they think. Or you could call in Michael Bloomberg or one of the other leaders of various gun grabbing groups and get them to opine. But these studies took a different approach: they went into the jails and prisons and asked the actual prisoners themselves. What a refreshing idea. The results shouldn’t be all that shocking to anyone who has thought about it in an honest fashion for more than a few minutes. Lots of criminals who are playing the game at a level that will involve shooting people already have extensive records and wouldn’t pass even the most cursory background check if they tried to purchase a gun legally. (And contrary to popular liberal belief, there are virtually no legal gun sales taking place which don’t require a background check aside from family or estate purchases.) And even if a would be criminal has a clean enough record to buy one, the study reveals that most of them fear purchasing a gun legally because they know it could be quickly traced back to them. There are probably a few stupid criminals out there who don’t realize this, but thankfully the stupid criminals are generally the easiest ones to find. more at the link: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/05/shocking-study-criminals-generally-dont-buy-guns-legally-at-gun-shops/ Of course, none of this has anything to do with electing a new Majority Leader in the House, but that's how these distractions work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) it's at least an equal contribution as your dishonest obfuscation is. Asking you how many gun deaths in this country are caused by guns purchased at gun shows is dishonest obfuscation? Is that you gator? If you're advocating closing those loopholes one would think you'd have some sort of an idea what effect that would have on gun deaths in this country. Sorry I'm making this difficult for you. Edited October 12, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 it's at least an equal contribution as your dishonest obfuscation is. So how do you propose stopping private gun sales (you know, the ones that criminals love to use) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 So how do you propose stopping private gun sales (you know, the ones that criminals love to use) Do what they've done here in Oakland. Put up billboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 ah, so you haven't abandoned it. you likely know these laws more closely than I do. this is really tiresome. why not try a little intellectual honesty? it's actually admirable as I opposed to what you are. anyway, from my link: Under current rules, those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone "who 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." That isn't a gun show loop hole. It's a loop hole for private transfer. You, me, or anyone else could walk into store selling firearms right now, make a legal purchase, assuming the proper credentials, and then turn around and sell, or transfer, that gun to another private citizen. No one in this example attended a gun show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) So how do you propose stopping private gun sales (you know, the ones that criminals love to use) so we've moved on from public opinion now. good. glad that's settled. Edited October 12, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 so we've moved on from public opinion now. good. glad that's settled. Yes, because you made a stupid argument with no teeth. It was very easy to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 so we've moved on from public opinion now. good. glad that's settled. Yup. So how are removing those loopholes going to reduce gun violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Hey birddog...I'll ask: what law would you have passed in Oregon that would have ensured those Christians were still alive today? We'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Hey birddog...I'll ask: what law would you have passed in Oregon that would have ensured those Christians were still alive today? We'll wait. no law ensures anything. laws can make events less or more likely. but your question implies that my point is well and truly agreed to. americans overwhelmingly want background checks which is stricter gun control. repug legislators aren't listening and aren't representing that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 americans overwhelmingly want background checks which is stricter gun control. How can adopting background checks for firearms purchases be considered to be stricter gun control when we already have mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 no law ensures anything. laws can make events less or more likely. but your question implies that my point is well and truly agreed to. americans overwhelmingly want background checks which is stricter gun control. repug legislators aren't listening and aren't representing that opinion. Background checks are meant to control who may be able to buy a gun, it is not the same as gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 no law ensures anything. laws can make events less or more likely. but your question implies that my point is well and truly agreed to. americans overwhelmingly want background checks which is stricter gun control. repug legislators aren't listening and aren't representing that opinion. spoken like a true disciple of the demagogue party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 no law ensures anything. laws can make events less or more likely. but your question implies that my point is well and truly agreed to. americans overwhelmingly want background checks which is stricter gun control. repug legislators aren't listening and aren't representing that opinion. How can adopting background checks for firearms purchases be considered to be stricter gun control when we already have mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers? I was ready to basically say the same thing when you posted this. Birdog is trying to confuse the situation with his disingenuousness. Yes, we're all for background checks, which we already f'n have with the exception of private transfers. I guess he thinks that mandating some kind of background check on the underground transfer of weapons is going to somehow reduce gun violence. I can see it now, "hey buddy, do you know where I can get a Glock"? "Sure, I know a guy who knows a guy, but first you need to fill out this form". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts