Interesting BBC radio show on this evening.

[Pond, James Pond]

On the walk home tonight I caught the second half of a radio show called World Have Your Say, broadcast by the BBC World Service.

It is a forum where the producers pick the subject from around the world that seems to have had the most traffic on social media. I don't know what the news item or event was, but the show was being broadcast from a gun-shop in Austin, Texas. They were discussing US gun politics, Concealed Carry Licence trends, and the potential role of the armed citizen.

Part of the formula of the programme is they get either experts in the given field or willing members of the public with a vested interest to talk, discuss and answer questions, live on air.
The programme allows for anyone to call in, text, tweet or leave a Facebook message if they have a comment or question for the guests.
Not all get answered in an hour, but there is usually a good spread. I wrote in, but my message didn't get picked I'm afraid...

The shop owner and host gave an over-view of his role as a gun-shop owner and "FFL" (correct?) dealer and guests had a chance to introduce themselves and give some background to their views, including whether or not they carried routinely.

True to the BBC practice, they had representatives from both sides of the debate, to give equal opportunity for an balanced discussion.

The link to the programme which should now be online to listen to through the web is HERE.

It was only an hour or so ago, but is already online.

There were a couple of issues that caught my attention that I thought might be of interest to TFL members:

Firstly, I noted one of the supporters of full background checks touted the "90% of Americans support universal background checks" statistic that I seem to recall TFL members have claimed is false: if that is the case, it still seems to carry weight with some.

Secondly, and more surprisingly, was a comment by the gun owner that I caught halfway through that made me stop in my tracks: I don't know if TFL members are aware of.
If I understood correctly, the shop owner said that if a customer comes in to buy two guns at the same time of certain types (one I think was the semi-auto rifle type but I can't remember the second type to trip this "alarm"), then the gun shop owner would call the FBI and, without the customer's knowledge, tell them the customer's name, as well as the serial numbers of the guns in question.
This seems odd, unless it is the shop owner's own practice as part of being conscientious...

Interestingly, no one mentioned, as far as I heard, the 2nd A'ment in terms of "defence against tyranny". It was all about SD.

Have a listen if you think you might be interested.

By the way, I am just putting this here for people's interest, not to start some sort of slagging match: whatever the views might be, let's be nice!!

[Armorer-at-Law]

If I understood correctly, the shop owner said that if a customer comes in to buy two guns at the same time of certain types (one I think was the semi-auto rifle type but I can't remember the second type to trip this "alarm"), then the gun shop owner would call the FBI and, without the customer's knowledge, tell them the customer's name, as well as the serial numbers of the guns in question.
This seems odd, unless it is the shop owner's own practice as part of being conscientious...

If a customer purchases multiple handguns in a 5-day period, there is a report form that is required to be submitted to the ATF. There is a controversial AFT requirement (read: not part of the law) that dealers have to report multiple sales of semiauto rifles in certain states that border Mexico. Whether the customer is aware of it or not, it's not just "being conscientious."

[Pond, James Pond]

Thanks for explaining that because I've just listened to the whole programme again trying to find that bit and it does not seem to be in the recorded version: I was pulling my hair out, trying to find it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

Firstly, I noted one of the supporters of full background checks touted the "90% of Americans support universal background checks" statistic that I seem to recall TFL members have claimed is false: if that is the case, it still seems to carry weight with some.

Welcome to the world of (at least) American politics. Statistics don't have to be true. All they need is for a few high-profile people to make a claim and then it's "out there". It's self-fulfilling. The "proof" is that someone of notoriety, someone "trustworthy", said it, so it's "true".

I wish I could find a link to a study I saw a few years back. The authors tracked claims made on websites. They found that once they reached a certain saturation level, some claims were actually reinforced by appeals to authority of their original source. In other words, something is said on one site, picked up by dozens of others and eventually the origin is "unknown". At that point, the older sources become the basis for "proof" that the claim is correct. Sometimes, the original source "A" would use other sources "B" as "A's" supposed "original" source when those sources "B" had in fact obtained the information from "A"....

Know what I mean?

[Pond, James Pond]

Sounds sort of like a self-perpetuating myth....

If that is what politics are like for your lot, it must be really hard for the electorate to make informed decisions.

One thing I hate about modern times and the social media culture: it is far easier to get information nowadays and yet seemingly also easier to feed falsehoods into general circulation.

Almost impossible to see the wood for the trees, what's a smokescreen and what isn't.

[Nickel Plated]

If that is what politics are like for your lot, it must be really hard for the electorate to make informed decisions.

It's not just for us I'm afraid. It works like that everywhere. Why do you think gun control is more accepted outside the U.S.? The statistics aren't any more true in England or France or Japan than they are here. Those people have just been fed more BS for a longer period of time so they started to believe it. If we don't refute the lies here it will happen same as anywhere else.

[Drizzt]

Michael Cargill from Central Texas Gunworks was one of the people (the shop owner) on the program. He has been an excellent spokesman for the 2nd Amendment here in Austin and is a really great guy as well.

[Armorer-at-Law]

If that is what politics are like for your lot, it must be really hard for the electorate to make informed decisions.

One thing I hate about modern times and the social media culture: it is far easier to get information nowadays and yet seemingly also easier to feed falsehoods into general circulation.

Our electorate is more lazy than uninformed. The information is available, but thinking is hard work. So much easier to just go with "feelings" formed from listening to others who loudly express their feelings or from entertainment sources.

[Drizzt]

You should see the discussion going on at the BBC Have Your Say page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

[Mike Irwin]

Links to the study touting the 90% acceptance of background checks have been posted here within the past couple of months.

IIRC it was an EXCEPTIONALLY small survey market and didn't seem to be conducted in areas that were, on the whole, known for their firearms culture.

My congressman (a guy I've known for years and like a lot as a person) hit me with the 90% figure; he didn't like it much when I explained to him that it was a bogus survey.

He's still using the 90% figure, but he's quieted down a lot since gun control failed in Congress.

[vito]

The "90% support background checks" is just like the still quoted "you are 43 times more likely to be killed if you have a gun in your house" that has been totally discredited. These false statistics support beliefs that many hold, and thus take hold and perpetuate. The other problem is that so many people still trust the government implicitly. They cannot imagine that background checks could lead to a government gun registry which would someday make confiscation much simpler. They think we are paranoid for such fears, despite what is in the news everyday about Fast and Furious, the lies over the attack at Benghazi, the wiretaps of AP reporters and the misuse of the IRS to intimidate and harass conservative groups. Sometimes I feel like the only people in this country who seem aware of our liberty being eroded are my fellow 2nd Amendment supporters. Gun rights is the "canary in the mine"; if we lose our gun rights we are already well on the way to total government tyranny.

[Skans]

If I understood correctly, the shop owner said that if a customer comes in to buy two guns at the same time of certain types (one I think was the semi-auto rifle type but I can't remember the second type to trip this "alarm"), then the gun shop owner would call the FBI and, without the customer's knowledge, tell them the customer's name, as well as the serial numbers of the guns in question.

This sort of depends on the circumstances:

Scenario 1: 21 year old guy who doesn't appear to be a "gun collector" is looking around the shop, while the entire time talking to someone on his cell phone describing the guns he's looking at - sticking to Hi-Points and Chrome Lorcins.

Scenario 2: 35+ year old guy walks into a shop, starts jawing with the owner letting him know that he is looking for "interesting" AK variants", 95%+ 3rd generation S&W autos, and any vintage open-bolt semi-autos. The owner mentions that he happens to have an ANIB S&W 5906, a Polytech Legend, and an old M10 open-bolt carbine. Buyer says what kind of deal can you give me for all three"? Owner says "$2,500 for all three". Buyer says "I'll take them all" and pays cash.

Here we have one guy who just wants to buy 2 handguns using a credit card; and another who paid cash for a hi-capacity 9mm, an assault rifle and a gun that ATF classified as "too easy to convert" into a machine gun to permit further production.

It's all in the details surrounding the circumstances - anything can be "spun" to look innocent (when it's not) or sinister (when it's not).