The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 6, 2020, 06:30 PM   #26
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,531
Do criminals usually pay the exorbitant gun show prices potentially within full view of mostly law abiding citizens? ...citizens that are probably more aware of gun laws than most?

Sure I understand that shady stuff happens in every single human endeavor, and that a small percentage of gun show sales happen illegally. Even I’m sure it’s happened at cabelas.

In the words of a famous VP and statesperson... “Come’on Man!!!”
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 7, 2020, 10:06 AM   #27
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmr40 View Post
Because there is just enough truth to it. In my world roughly 1/2 of the tables at gun shows anymore are being run by non-FFL's who are selling used firearms without doing background checks or 4473's. The ones with a FFL are required to have a 4473 and either do a background check or verify a carry license which allows GA residents to forego the background check.

It would be near impossible to buy a new gun through the internet with no background check. But there is nothing illegal about a buyer making contact with an online seller in the classifieds here or any other internet forum getting together for a face to face transaction. At least as long as they are both residents of the same state and were otherwise legally able to buy the gun.

Bloomberg may not be telling the whole truth, but neither are most gun owners.
Well said.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
When the Brady Act was pushed through, we were promised it would result in drastic crime reductions. To this day, I have seen no data that shows any causal relationship between the law and even a modest drop in crime.

Background checks simply don't work.
The trend in violent crimes has dropped dramatically sine 1993(the year the Brady bill passed). Lowest rate in 44 years and half the rate as in 1991(as of 2014). Is it related? Are there other factors? Of course there are, but can any one prove that the bill did not have at least a casual relationship there? Can one accuse an anti of lying when they say it did have an impact? Many claim that homicide/suicide rates did not drop since 1993, but no real studies show if the use of firearms in the committing of those crimes, was reduced. While the Brady bill created an inconvenience to me, it has not reduced my ability to get a firearm and most firearms today are less expensive relatively, than they were back in the 90s. Thank goodness my state dropped their 3 day waiting period for handguns.

Same goes for the second statement.

I see these blanket statements all the time, by both pro and anti gun folks. Falls under the premise that maybe if you say it enough it becomes truth. We all know that most hard core criminals get the firearms illegally anyway, so in that sense, I agree, BGCs do not work. But studies show they do reduce straw purchases and the obtaining of firearms for other prohibited people. Besides having to get a BGC everytime when purchasing a firearm from an FFL, I have to have one once a year for work. I also need one every year I coach youth sports and I need another one to ref/officiate youth sports. They too do not work 100% of the time, but it does not mean they do not work.

I'm certainly not here endorsing Bloomberg, nor am I advocating any new gun control legislation. IMHO, we have enough restrictions on the books when it comes to firearms, we just need to enforce and practice them better. My point is, that blanket half truth statements, like jmr40 says in his good post, happen on both sides. If we are to criticize others, we can not do it ourselves. Something about the pot calling the kettle a specific color.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old March 7, 2020, 10:53 AM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 13,910
As Mark Twain once said (or wrote), "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Statistics may show that violent crime has been on a downward trajectory, but statistics are only as good as the data behind them (and the slant of whoever is compiling the statistics). The aftermath of the Parkland (FL) school shooting is one example. The follow-up revealed something nicknamed the "Broward Solution" to crime in schools -- rather than deal with criminal acts objectively, the school district and the county sheriff's office conspired to under-report and downgrade offenses, thereby "cooking the books" to create the impression that they were successful in reducing crime. It has been proposed that the shooter slipped through the cracks as a result of this initiative.

Just this week, a sergeant in the Washington, DC, police department went whistle blower and revealed that DC is doing the same thing -- under-reporting and downgrading offenses to make the city appear safer than it is.

When you can't believe the data, the result is that nobody is a liar, but nobody is correct. Nobody really knows what the truth is.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 7, 2020, 11:26 AM   #29
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,825
BGCs "work" perfectly to accomplish the policy goal of those who press for them, to burden the practice of the right.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 7, 2020, 01:47 PM   #30
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,339
And, there's more to it than just "cooking the books" about reporting crime. There is also a lack of enforcement of certain crimes.

Attempting to buy a firearm when you are not legal to do so, is a CRIME. Likewise, lying on the Fed forms is a separate crime. Yet there is very little enforcement and even less prosecution of those crimes.

The Clinton administration boasted how they had used background check laws to keep gun out of the hands of thousands of people who "shouldn't have guns". One source, at the time, did some checking and reported that while there were thousands of denials, there had only been something like 44 prosecutions, and didn't have numbers on convictions.

Decades later, the same thing still going on, then Vice President Joe Biden was "caught" by newsfolk (meaning not a scheduled interview) and asked directly why there was so little Federal prosecution of people illegally trying to buy guns. His answer, which I saw on video, was to look right at the questioner, and state, "We don't have time for that." before walking away.

The law is the law, but what gets priority, and what gets ignored comes from the attitude at the top.

So, here, now in this election cycle, as we had before and likely will have afterwards, we have people telling partial truths and outright lies, vying for the top office in the land, telling us we need more of what has been proven not to work the way its claimed to work, and that they wouldn't USE even IF they had it!!


Why is it that lying on a job application is considered valid grounds for not hiring you, or for dismissing you after being hired when the lie is discovered, and yet NOT an issue when a politician is applying for a job (running for office) UNLESS the lie crosses some ill defined boundary, which is different for each different group of voters?

Personally, I don't want someone in charge of the "nation's biggest business" (the US government) who cannot or WILL NOT get simple facts correct.

But, that's just me...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 7, 2020, 06:04 PM   #31
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,233
I worked a lot of homicides and attempted homicides in my l.e. days. Most were edge weapons. Most of the firearms involved himocides were illegally obtained guns. Very few gun homicides were committed with legally obtained firearms. (I am omitting justifiable homicides even though statistically, they do count)
reynolds357 is offline  
Old March 7, 2020, 06:39 PM   #32
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,531
Quote:
under-reporting and downgrading offenses to make the city appear safer than it is.
I’ve seen this in smaller communities too.
Even moderate sized cities.
I lived in one city recently that crime has gotten so bad, that no one is enforcing traffic laws anymore because they are too busy. Driving in this city has become like the Wild West... people driving on sidewalks and everything.
So I think it’s a credible notion that crime is higher now
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 7, 2020, 07:24 PM   #33
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by buck460XVR View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Possibly not, but why should we do so in the first place? When the Brady Act was pushed through, we were promised it would result in drastic crime reductions. To this day, I have seen no data that shows any causal relationship between the law and even a modest drop in crime.....
....Of course there are, but can any one prove that the bill did not have at least a casual relationship there? Can one accuse an anti of lying when they say it did have an impact?....
Tom Servo was asking about a causal relationship, not a casual one. The two are decidedly different.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 7, 2020, 07:45 PM   #34
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleA View Post
How can this lie get repeated and repeated and repeated again?

Michael Bloomberg most recently did it at a Fox town hall meeting.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/bloomb...ews-town-hall/

Now Bloomberg certainly knows his stuff about guns, he's been demonizing them for years and at a Fox town hall meeting how did he think he could get away with saying this? Maybe the campaigning had him discombobulated? He certainly can't believe this and I can't believe he thought he could get away with it.

But the anti-gun folk in my home state (Minnesota) also bring this up again and again and again too. Is there ANY way to drive a stake thru the heart of this lie to get rid of it once and for all?
The Democrats wont be happy until everything except muzzle loaders are banned, and they will want a $2500 tax stamp on them.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old March 7, 2020, 11:58 PM   #35
hikingman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2004
Location: Alabama
Posts: 273
Fact check a story, or source quoted in the story?

I suppose the source, and the writer are okay with a fabrication that is not accurate.
__________________
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem. Ronald Reagan, 1985
hikingman is offline  
Old March 8, 2020, 04:25 AM   #36
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,610
Quote:
The trend in violent crimes has dropped dramatically sine 1993(the year the Brady bill passed).
Actually, no. The decline started as early as 1991. Although the Brady Act passed in 1993, the NICS system didn't go online until 1998.

There is simply no way they can claim their law had any effect on a decline in crime that started well before its provisions went into effect.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 8, 2020, 05:51 AM   #37
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,407
Quote:
The decline started as early as 1991
So - in other words - just about the time the economy rose from the dead....
Hal is offline  
Old March 8, 2020, 12:41 PM   #38
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee View Post
Tom Servo was asking about a causal relationship, not a casual one. The two are decidedly different.
Yes I know. I meant to write causal.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Actually, no. The decline started as early as 1991. Although the Brady Act passed in 1993, the NICS system didn't go online until 1998.

There is simply no way they can claim their law had any effect on a decline in crime that started well before its provisions went into effect.
Sure they can make the claim....just as you are making yours. They can claim that the bill helped with the continued decline. They can make the claim that the atmosphere and attitude towards guns of the time not only brought on the acceptance of said bill, but the reduction of gun related crimes. They can also make the claim that since the bill was enacted about a million and a half attempted firearm purchases have been blocked....mostly because of previous felony convictions. There is proof that BGCs work.As I said before, I know most serious criminals do not go to a gun store for their firearms. So there is proof that BGCs work all the time. My point is, in reality, neither side has any real qualified evidence. Correlation does not imply causation.

I myself do not know for sure. I only have my opinion. I cannot make a blanket statement one way or the other. For me, the evidence is still out. That does not mean I endorse or support either way. Again, I think we have more than enough laws/regs on the book. Just that I'm still waiting for folks making their claims to prove it with some form of supportive evidence, not just blanket, absolute statements.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal View Post
So - in other words - just about the time the economy rose from the dead....
Yet during the last Great Recession(December 2007 – June 2009) violent crime continued to drop. This economic crises was much worst than that of the early nineties. There was also the recession of March 2001 – November 2001, that was almost as bad as the one during the early nineties. Still no increase in violent crime. So using the economy thus as an indicator does not work.

Again, my point is not about no background checks at gun shows, we all know that can interpreted many ways. That is my point. Just as we know the antis cannot make that blanket statement, we ourselves cannot make the blanket statement that it never happens. Cause we know it does, under certain scenarios. Both sides are using invalid information in a vain attempt to prove their point. Makes both sides look like liars. I can make the claim tho, that in my opinion, making BGCs for all firearm sales, would not significantly reduce crime.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old March 8, 2020, 05:28 PM   #39
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,610
Quote:
So - in other words - just about the time the economy rose from the dead...
Not so much. There have been several theories on the decline. Causes cited include a generation free of lead exposure from paint and gasoline, and the dwindling of the crack cocaine epidemic.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 8, 2020, 08:20 PM   #40
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,325
"They've been doing this for decades. Giving them anything they want only emboldens them and shifts the line further."

Exactly!! It's a slippery slope and many on the left have admitted in recent years their long term goal is gun confiscation, not just "assault weapons", but ... ALL of them. Hanguns, rifles, shotguns, airguns, they want them ALL. There can be no compromise.
shurshot is offline  
Old March 8, 2020, 10:17 PM   #41
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
The strongest argument about private sales for me, easy for me to say of course because I live in a state with minimal laws concerning such, is the only legal transaction occurs between two residents of the same state..

Generally then any problems arising from such sales are isolated to the state which is allowing it.

Or in other words states can address background checks as they see fit and it should not be dictated down federally..

Some states have UBC (or permitting and reporting laws to accomplish the same) in place, and I have seen first hand people arguing about how important it is to have UBC when its already in place where they live.

Some anti gun types do understand a point made along these lines, ie people cannot legally go to another state and buy a gun without a background check, it's illegal by federal law and has been for some time.

But then background checks and many other such firearm regulations are dictated federally - illogical how that happened when the majority of the states would likely allow more lenient regulations than exist federally, but that is the awful precedent.
riffraff is offline  
Old March 11, 2020, 09:32 AM   #42
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,932
The same way Joe Biden can get away with calling AR-14's (sic) Machine guns and screaming "WHY DO YOU NEED 100 BULLETS!"
Skans is offline  
Old March 11, 2020, 11:45 AM   #43
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,339
Quote:
But then background checks and many other such firearm regulations are dictated federally - illogical how that happened when the majority of the states would likely allow more lenient regulations than exist federally, but that is the awful precedent.
It's not illogical, but its not exactly what you think it is.

Federal law, as it exists today, is not quite the top down national blanket check that advocates are proposing. It only applies to FFL dealers. It is within Fed authority because an FFL is a FEDERAL LICENSE.
Put another way, YOU or I are not required to have the check done (under Fed law), the DEALER is required to do it. It's a rule for them, not us.

Sales that do not go through an FFL, do NOT, under FEDERAL law, require a background check.

Various STATES have laws (now) that require ALL "transfers" to go through an FFL dealer. State law, not Federal law.

State laws that require going through an FFL so the check must be done are what make it a rule for us.

States that still allow private transfers without requiring going through an FFL dealer don't require background checks on those transfers. It's always been complicated, as not only are state and federal laws involved, State firearms laws have always been in a special class under federal law. The clearest example is with state licenses (specifically concealed carry permits).

Fed law requires every state to recognize and allow the permits, Licenses and "acts" of the other states, except for firearms laws. Every state honors other state's drivers licenses, and marriage licenses, but under existing federal law, they don't have to honor other states gun permits. States can choose to, or not, at their own discretion.

Am not a lawyer, that's how I understand it. If I'm incorrect, please enlighten me.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 11, 2020, 12:44 PM   #44
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,825
That's exactly right; currently UBCs are a state matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
Fed law requires every state to recognize and allow the permits, Licenses and "acts" of the other states, except for firearms laws. Every state honors other state's drivers licenses, and marriage licenses, but under existing federal law, they don't have to honor other states gun permits. States can choose to, or not, at their own discretion.
There is a body of law surrounding where state sovereignty ends and FF&C begins. I'm not going to suggest that it is simple, clear or consistent.

Many licenses are not recognized across state lines except as a matter of state administration or voluntary recognition. KY and GA aren't obligated to accepted even the DLs of the drivers from the other state except that they've both agreed they will.

I do question whether there is a real public policy difference where one state wants to see eight hours of classroom "instruction", while a neighboring state may only require six. A two hour difference doesn't sound like much of a public policy difference at all.

I don't support a federal concealed carry license, but I would like to see something like the Driver License Agreement (a successor to the Driver License Compact), but for carry permits, amongst the states.

Last edited by zukiphile; March 11, 2020 at 12:54 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09140 seconds with 10 queries