kelpdiver 2 #176 March 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Uh, you do realize that 46% of gun show investigations has absolutely no relation to 0.7% of guns used in crimes? Umm - purchase of a gun by a felon IS a crime, chief. another irrelevancy to try to hide your unsupportable stance. The fact remains that gun shows provide less than 1% of the weapons used in crime. You're trying to argue past that fact, but you can only do that by confusing the denominators between the 0.7 and 46%. For one of them, it's all crime. For the other, it's the number of investigations done at gun shows, a substantially smaller number. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #177 March 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Uh, you do realize that 46% of gun show investigations has absolutely no relation to 0.7% of guns used in crimes? Umm - purchase of a gun by a felon IS a crime, chief. In fact, a convicted felon is breaking the law merely by holding any firearm or even a single live round of ammunition...even a .22 rimfire cartridge. I'm probably jumping into the fire by posting, but here goes. The so-called "gunshow loophole" is not limited just to gunshows or linked to them except by way of private sellers. Anti-gunners want gunshows stopped, so instead of calling it a "private sale" loophole, which it is, they call it a "gunshow" loophole. Get gunshows banned first, then go after private sales. snip There's no evidence that gun shows have been shut down, or disadvantaged in any way, in states that have required NICS checks on sales by unlicensed vendors at gun shows. In fact some guns shows have voluntarily adopted a rule for such a check if their state law doesn't require it. Yet another scare tactic from the gun lobby.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #178 March 10, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Uh, you do realize that 46% of gun show investigations has absolutely no relation to 0.7% of guns used in crimes? Umm - purchase of a gun by a felon IS a crime, chief. another irrelevancy to try to hide your unsupportable stance. The fact remains that gun shows provide less than 1% of the weapons used in crime. You're trying to argue past that fact, but you can only do that by confusing the denominators between the 0.7 and 46%. For one of them, it's all crime. For the other, it's the number of investigations done at gun shows, a substantially smaller number. Of course, CONVICTED CRIMINALS never lie in your world. (Convicted criminals are the source of your number). I bet they all told the judge "Guilty as charged, your Honor" tooOn the other hand, a bit of the BATF report that you conveniently omitted stated: "The ATF analyzed more 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation (behind only corrupt federally licensed dealers)." The BATF traced the guns used in crimes. Guns don't lie, but convicted criminals do.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #179 March 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Uh, you do realize that 46% of gun show investigations has absolutely no relation to 0.7% of guns used in crimes? Umm - purchase of a gun by a felon IS a crime, chief. umm... purchase of a gun by a felon does not constitute use of a gun in a crime, son. (I couldn't pull off "chief")-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #180 March 10, 2010 QuoteQuote "Preventing the enforcement of EXISTING laws" The prohibition on selling guns to felons IS an existing law. So, show us that federal law that requires NIC checks for private sales. QuoteAll you have is semantics, you don't have anything else. Coming from the person that made such a HUGE stink upthread talking about the difference between "NRA" and "gun lobby", your sudden protestations are even MORE lame than usual, Semantics boy. You made the claim - prove it or admit you were lying, like usual.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #181 March 10, 2010 QuoteThere's no evidence that gun shows have been shut down, or disadvantaged in any way, in states that have required NICS checks on sales by unlicensed vendors at gun shows. In fact some guns shows have voluntarily adopted a rule for such a check if their state law doesn't require it. Yet another scare tactic from the gun lobby. "Unlicensed vendors" - illegal, and yet ANOTHER lie from kallend.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #182 March 10, 2010 For ATF to have traced the guns back to a gun show, there had to be a record of the sale, which means at least a NICS CHECK was done. That also means that the guns ATF traced back to gun shows were either: A. Bought by legal purchasers and then stolen. B. Bought by legal purchaser that later used it in a crime. C. Bought by a straw purchaser. Options B and C, of course, are as impossible to determine beforehand as knowing if a physics professor is going to crash a Mooney into a gun show. So, once you make your future crime machine, we can get those future criminals and straw purchasers rounded up before they get those seven-tenths of one percent of crime guns out to the street. QuoteOn the other hand, a bit of the BATF report Since you mention the ATF, here's some OTHER info from them, found in the data disclaimer on every trace report(emphasis mine): "Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #183 March 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteThere's no evidence that gun shows have been shut down, or disadvantaged in any way, in states that have required NICS checks on sales by unlicensed vendors at gun shows. In fact some guns shows have voluntarily adopted a rule for such a check if their state law doesn't require it. Yet another scare tactic from the gun lobby. "Unlicensed vendors" - illegal, and yet ANOTHER lie from kallend. Vendor, n: One who sells something; a "seller." So you're now claiming it's illegal to sell a gun without a license. Which law is that? You really don't have a dictionary, do you? Borrow one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #184 March 10, 2010 QuoteFor ATF to have traced the guns back to a gun show, there had to be a record of the sale, which means at least a NICS CHECK was done. That also means that the guns ATF traced back to gun shows were either: A. Bought by legal purchasers and then stolen. B. Bought by legal purchaser that later used it in a crime. C. Bought by a straw purchaser. Options B and C, of course, are as impossible to determine beforehand as knowing if a physics professor is going to crash a Mooney into a gun show. So, once you make your future crime machine, we can get those future criminals and straw purchasers rounded up before they get those seven-tenths of one percent of crime guns out to the street. QuoteOn the other hand, a bit of the BATF report Since you mention the ATF, here's some OTHER info from them, found in the data disclaimer on every trace report(emphasis mine): "Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime." Take it up with BATF, it was their report. And unlike the data you reported, it didn't depend on the truthfulness of convicted criminals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #185 March 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote "Preventing the enforcement of EXISTING laws" The prohibition on selling guns to felons IS an existing law. So, show us that federal law that requires NIC checks for private sales. Never said there was one. You really do have a comprehension problem, Mike.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #186 March 10, 2010 QuoteAnd unlike the data you reported, it didn't depend on the truthfulness of convicted criminals. Or the truthfulness of physics professors, luckily enough.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #187 March 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote "Preventing the enforcement of EXISTING laws" The prohibition on selling guns to felons IS an existing law. So, show us that federal law that requires NIC checks for private sales. Never said there was one. You really do have a comprehension problem, Mike. So, you admit you LIED when you talked about 'the gun lobby blocking enforcement of existing law' - good.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #188 March 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteFor ATF to have traced the guns back to a gun show, there had to be a record of the sale, which means at least a NICS CHECK was done. That also means that the guns ATF traced back to gun shows were either: A. Bought by legal purchasers and then stolen. B. Bought by legal purchaser that later used it in a crime. C. Bought by a straw purchaser. Options B and C, of course, are as impossible to determine beforehand as knowing if a physics professor is going to crash a Mooney into a gun show. So, once you make your future crime machine, we can get those future criminals and straw purchasers rounded up before they get those seven-tenths of one percent of crime guns out to the street. QuoteOn the other hand, a bit of the BATF report Since you mention the ATF, here's some OTHER info from them, found in the data disclaimer on every trace report(emphasis mine): "Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime." Take it up with BATF, it was their report. How convenient. You post a quote from the BATF when it suits you and helps support your argument but when someone finds a flaw......."Take it up with the BATF". Pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #189 March 10, 2010 QuotePathetic. Typical.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #190 March 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote "Preventing the enforcement of EXISTING laws" The prohibition on selling guns to felons IS an existing law. So, show us that federal law that requires NIC checks for private sales. Never said there was one. You really do have a comprehension problem, Mike. So, you admit you LIED when you talked about 'the gun lobby blocking enforcement of existing law' - good. You have a serious reading comprehension problem and a bad tendency to uses strawmen in your feeble attempts to win internet arguments. (BIG HINT: See post #86 of this thread). But thank you for making MY point over and over again (BIG HINT see post #86, this thread, you just reinforce it, over and over again).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #191 March 11, 2010 QuoteYou have a serious reading comprehension problem and a bad tendency to uses strawmen in your feeble attempts to win internet arguments. (BIG HINT: See post #86 of this thread). Your own words, John, so how can it be a strawman? Looks like YOU need that dictionary more than I do. You LIED to try to make your point - that's obvious to everyone here. QuoteBut thank you for making MY point over and over again (BIG HINT see post #86, this thread, you just reinforce it, over and over again). Here's a hint for you - if the 'gun lobby' is speaking out about a BILL, it's not an 'existing law'. You make MY point over and over and over again - you LIE to make your point.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #192 March 11, 2010 Kallend, Mneal - cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #193 March 11, 2010 just kill the thread. there hasn't been civil discussion here for a couple of pages.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
