Glitch 0 #51 June 1, 2011 QuoteThere are a number of parallels between tobacco and arms industry. I really don't feel a need to spell that all out for you.... Please.... spell it out for me the parallels between the tobacco and arms industries.Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 June 1, 2011 Quote You want a link to the tobacco precedent, or you want a link to a definition of big business. the civilian gun market is not "big business." Not remotely close. Whereas Atria can pay billions to the Feds and still pay a fat 5% dividend to its shareholders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #53 June 1, 2011 Quotethe civilian gun market is not "big business." All the more reason to tap into "other markets". Which ties into the tobacco case. And just so we are clear, re-read my first post in this thread. I am not claiming business is involved in Gun Trafficking. Just stated that I cannot take anything in the article as fact and further stating there is a precedent in a similar industry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #54 June 1, 2011 QuoteQuotethe civilian gun market is not "big business." All the more reason to tap into "other markets". Which ties into the tobacco case. And just so we are clear, re-read my first post in this thread. I am not claiming business is involved in Gun Trafficking. Just stated that I cannot take anything in the article as fact and further stating there is a precedent in a similar industry. The first part I agee with to a point. But you have to leave that hanging to make it hold up The part about the precedent is total crap"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #55 June 1, 2011 Regardless of what topic Kleck writes most about, his estimate of the frequency of defensive gun use is way out of line with that of the US Dept. of Justice based on actual reports of attempted crime from police and the FBI.... 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
kelpdiver 2 #56 June 1, 2011 QuoteQuotethe civilian gun market is not "big business." All the more reason to tap into "other markets". Which ties into the tobacco case. And just so we are clear, re-read my first post in this thread. I am not claiming business is involved in Gun Trafficking. Just stated that I cannot take anything in the article as fact and further stating there is a precedent in a similar industry. This is a pretty good setup for you to ignore anything then that doesn't meet your preexisting beliefs. Karl Rove approves! Shaky tobacco research was not repeatable by others. And it was shown to be false. Same can be done for Kleck. But choosing to ignore him because Phillip Morris or Coca-Cola puts up laughable research is intellectually devoid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #57 June 1, 2011 QuoteRegardless of what topic Kleck writes most about, his estimate of the frequency of defensive gun use is way out of line with that of the US Dept. of Justice based on actual reports of attempted crime from police and the FBI. we've repeatedly covered why that the DoJ figure is the absolute low ball number, and not one that can be taken seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #58 June 1, 2011 QuoteThe part about the precedent is total crap Right, tobacco companies weren't involved in smuggling.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #59 June 1, 2011 QuoteShaky tobacco research was not repeatable by others. And it was shown to be false. Same can be done for Kleck. But choosing to ignore him because Phillip Morris or Coca-Cola puts up laughable research is intellectually devoid. Not talking about research, I'm talking about companies and senior executives in those companies actively involved with smuggling. That has taken place in the tobacco industry, hence my comment about precedent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 June 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteShaky tobacco research was not repeatable by others. And it was shown to be false. Same can be done for Kleck. But choosing to ignore him because Phillip Morris or Coca-Cola puts up laughable research is intellectually devoid. Not talking about research, I'm talking about companies and senior executives in those companies actively involved with smuggling. That has taken place in the tobacco industry, hence my comment about precedent. and my same point applies. Your mind is made up, so nothing anyone can write to the contrary will be ignored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #61 June 1, 2011 QuoteYour mind is made up That tobacco companies and executives were actively involved in smuggling? You are right, my mind is made up on that. Whether that carries over to the gun industry remains to be seen. Not going to base my opinion on one article in a newspaper, specially not when the writer has shown a bias on the subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #62 June 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteRegardless of what topic Kleck writes most about, his estimate of the frequency of defensive gun use is way out of line with that of the US Dept. of Justice based on actual reports of attempted crime from police and the FBI. we've repeatedly covered why that the DoJ figure is the absolute low ball number, and not one that can be taken seriously. Opinion. DoJ figures are taken from ACTUAL reports. Unlike Kleck's estimates.... 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 2,026 #63 June 1, 2011 Quote Your mind is made up, so nothing anyone can write to the contrary will be ignored. Not like you or John Rich, then?... 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
kelpdiver 2 #64 June 2, 2011 QuoteQuote Opinion. DoJ figures are taken from ACTUAL reports. Unlike Kleck's estimates. No, it's easily provable. The DoJ cannot include events where the police are not called, either because the victim sees no point in filing a generic report, or because the victim was not legally allowed to defend himself (ie, Chicago, NYC). When others review/criticize Kleck's figures, they still end up with the own estimates well above the DoJ (the one I referenced starting with the link in this thread was 5x). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #65 June 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of what topic Kleck writes most about, his estimate of the frequency of defensive gun use is way out of line with that of the US Dept. of Justice based on actual reports of attempted crime from police and the FBI. we've repeatedly covered why that the DoJ figure is the absolute low ball number, and not one that can be taken seriously. Opinion. DoJ figures are taken from ACTUAL reports. Unlike Kleck's estimates. The National Institute of Justice came up with similary numbers in a 1997 study, sponsored by the DOJ. "Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #66 June 2, 2011 QuoteQuote2) Recently I saw a picture of weapons taken from some Mexican drug gang. The weapons included M-16s with 40mm grenade launchers attached, 40mm grenades, hand grenades with the handles taped down - you know, the stuff every pawn shop in Texas carries. Right, and those grenade items aren't generally sold in pawn shops, not even in Texas. The mexican drug gangs get 'em by stealing them from their own army, or from other central American countries. Very few of them are coming from America, but you wouldn't know that from watching the news. News:Is the U.S. Arming Mexican Cartels? If you ever watch video or look at pictures of the drug war in Mexico, you'll notice some pretty heavy weapons. This is a war being waged with rockets and plastic explosives, not pea shooters and Saturday Night Specials... You can't buy this stuff at a U.S. gun store. So where do the cartels get it? According to leaked diplomatic cables, there are three sources. 1. U.S. Defense Department shipments to Latin America, known and tracked by the U.S. State Department as "foreign military sales." 2. Weapons ordered by the Mexican government, tracked by the State Department as "direct commercial sales." 3. Aging, but plentiful arsenals of military weapon stores in Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Even though these facts were well-known by the Obama administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, it blamed much of the violence in Mexico on U.S. gun stores... Full story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/28/americas-war-arming-mexican-cartels/?test=latestnews Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #67 June 2, 2011 The majority of weapons are from the US. They are known to be sold straight into smuggling. The US could stop the illegal transfers by not allowing US companies to provide arms to Mexico. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #68 June 2, 2011 QuoteThe majority of weapons are from the US. They are known to be sold straight into smuggling. The US could stop the illegal transfers by not allowing US companies to provide arms to Mexico. Cite, please.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #69 June 2, 2011 The article linked by John. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #70 June 2, 2011 QuoteThe article linked by John. You evidently missed this part of the article: Tens of thousands of firearms and explosives are sold legally through the U.S. State Department to the Mexican government. These weapons are then funneled to the traffickers and cartels by corrupt officials within the Mexico Ministry of Defense and local and state police departments. So, no, they're not sold by the companies directly to Mexico and they're not sold directly into smuggling.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #71 June 2, 2011 You missed the part where the US State Department knows this is happening, yet continues with the transactions. And I agree, they are not sold directly by the companies, it is nicely facilitated by the US government. Turns out this number of "90% from the US" might be true. I know that in Canada, and am pretty sure the same holds true in the US, providing/selling a product when you know it will be used for illegal purposes, is in itself illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wsd 0 #72 June 2, 2011 You do understand we are not talking about private citizens nor companies perpetuating this crime right? So if you are in agreement our government should be the ones in prison, leave the rest of us alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #73 June 3, 2011 QuoteYou missed the part where the US State Department knows this is happening, yet continues with the transactions. The State Department cannot control what corrupt members of the Mexican gov't or army does. QuoteAnd I agree, they are not sold directly by the companies, it is nicely facilitated by the US government. So you agree that your earlier claims were bogus, then...that's a start. QuoteTurns out this number of "90% from the US" might be true. The 90% claim makes a nice soundbite but is misleading - Mexico has only submitted for tracing weapons that they believe may have come from civilian sources. ATF doesn't have records of military sales, so those nifty full-auto M16s and M203s that the media like to use as backdrops for their stories are NOT the ones that are being traced. QuoteI know that in Canada, and am pretty sure the same holds true in the US, providing/selling a product when you know it will be used for illegal purposes, is in itself illegal. You can show us the shipping docs that has Fed.gov delivering them to "Mexican Mafia Inc.", then? No? Can't make the claim then, can you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #74 June 3, 2011 QuoteThe State Department cannot control what corrupt members of the Mexican gov't or army does. Right, but they can control the transaction itself. They have already indicated that they are aware it is happening. QuoteThe 90% claim makes a nice soundbite but is misleading - Mexico has only submitted for tracing weapons that they believe may have come from civilian sources. ATF doesn't have records of military sales, so those nifty full-auto M16s and M203s that the media like to use as backdrops for their stories are NOT the ones that are being traced. Right, but according to the article, they are most likely coming from the US. QuoteYou can show us the shipping docs that has Fed.gov delivering them to "Mexican Mafia Inc.", then? No? Can't make the claim then, can you? I have a nice stupid question for you too: Can you show me any shipping label with gov.com on it? No? Can't really ask for it then, can you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #75 June 3, 2011 QuoteRight, but according to the article, they are most likely coming from the US. They can only prove that for ones that *can* be traced - that is where the article misleads, by making you think that all the weapons that were recovered were traceable. QuoteQuoteYou can show us the shipping docs that has Fed.gov delivering them to "Mexican Mafia Inc.", then? No? Can't make the claim then, can you? I have a nice stupid question for you too: Can you show me any shipping label with gov.com on it? No? Can't really ask for it then, can you? "U.S. Defense Department shipments to Latin America, known and tracked by the U.S. State Department as "foreign military sales." "Weapons ordered by the Mexican government, tracked by the State Department as 'direct commercial sales.'"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 3 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #65 June 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteRegardless of what topic Kleck writes most about, his estimate of the frequency of defensive gun use is way out of line with that of the US Dept. of Justice based on actual reports of attempted crime from police and the FBI. we've repeatedly covered why that the DoJ figure is the absolute low ball number, and not one that can be taken seriously. Opinion. DoJ figures are taken from ACTUAL reports. Unlike Kleck's estimates. The National Institute of Justice came up with similary numbers in a 1997 study, sponsored by the DOJ. "Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #66 June 2, 2011 QuoteQuote2) Recently I saw a picture of weapons taken from some Mexican drug gang. The weapons included M-16s with 40mm grenade launchers attached, 40mm grenades, hand grenades with the handles taped down - you know, the stuff every pawn shop in Texas carries. Right, and those grenade items aren't generally sold in pawn shops, not even in Texas. The mexican drug gangs get 'em by stealing them from their own army, or from other central American countries. Very few of them are coming from America, but you wouldn't know that from watching the news. News:Is the U.S. Arming Mexican Cartels? If you ever watch video or look at pictures of the drug war in Mexico, you'll notice some pretty heavy weapons. This is a war being waged with rockets and plastic explosives, not pea shooters and Saturday Night Specials... You can't buy this stuff at a U.S. gun store. So where do the cartels get it? According to leaked diplomatic cables, there are three sources. 1. U.S. Defense Department shipments to Latin America, known and tracked by the U.S. State Department as "foreign military sales." 2. Weapons ordered by the Mexican government, tracked by the State Department as "direct commercial sales." 3. Aging, but plentiful arsenals of military weapon stores in Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Even though these facts were well-known by the Obama administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, it blamed much of the violence in Mexico on U.S. gun stores... Full story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/28/americas-war-arming-mexican-cartels/?test=latestnews Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 June 2, 2011 The majority of weapons are from the US. They are known to be sold straight into smuggling. The US could stop the illegal transfers by not allowing US companies to provide arms to Mexico. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #68 June 2, 2011 QuoteThe majority of weapons are from the US. They are known to be sold straight into smuggling. The US could stop the illegal transfers by not allowing US companies to provide arms to Mexico. Cite, please.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #69 June 2, 2011 The article linked by John. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 June 2, 2011 QuoteThe article linked by John. You evidently missed this part of the article: Tens of thousands of firearms and explosives are sold legally through the U.S. State Department to the Mexican government. These weapons are then funneled to the traffickers and cartels by corrupt officials within the Mexico Ministry of Defense and local and state police departments. So, no, they're not sold by the companies directly to Mexico and they're not sold directly into smuggling.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #71 June 2, 2011 You missed the part where the US State Department knows this is happening, yet continues with the transactions. And I agree, they are not sold directly by the companies, it is nicely facilitated by the US government. Turns out this number of "90% from the US" might be true. I know that in Canada, and am pretty sure the same holds true in the US, providing/selling a product when you know it will be used for illegal purposes, is in itself illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wsd 0 #72 June 2, 2011 You do understand we are not talking about private citizens nor companies perpetuating this crime right? So if you are in agreement our government should be the ones in prison, leave the rest of us alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 June 3, 2011 QuoteYou missed the part where the US State Department knows this is happening, yet continues with the transactions. The State Department cannot control what corrupt members of the Mexican gov't or army does. QuoteAnd I agree, they are not sold directly by the companies, it is nicely facilitated by the US government. So you agree that your earlier claims were bogus, then...that's a start. QuoteTurns out this number of "90% from the US" might be true. The 90% claim makes a nice soundbite but is misleading - Mexico has only submitted for tracing weapons that they believe may have come from civilian sources. ATF doesn't have records of military sales, so those nifty full-auto M16s and M203s that the media like to use as backdrops for their stories are NOT the ones that are being traced. QuoteI know that in Canada, and am pretty sure the same holds true in the US, providing/selling a product when you know it will be used for illegal purposes, is in itself illegal. You can show us the shipping docs that has Fed.gov delivering them to "Mexican Mafia Inc.", then? No? Can't make the claim then, can you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #74 June 3, 2011 QuoteThe State Department cannot control what corrupt members of the Mexican gov't or army does. Right, but they can control the transaction itself. They have already indicated that they are aware it is happening. QuoteThe 90% claim makes a nice soundbite but is misleading - Mexico has only submitted for tracing weapons that they believe may have come from civilian sources. ATF doesn't have records of military sales, so those nifty full-auto M16s and M203s that the media like to use as backdrops for their stories are NOT the ones that are being traced. Right, but according to the article, they are most likely coming from the US. QuoteYou can show us the shipping docs that has Fed.gov delivering them to "Mexican Mafia Inc.", then? No? Can't make the claim then, can you? I have a nice stupid question for you too: Can you show me any shipping label with gov.com on it? No? Can't really ask for it then, can you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 June 3, 2011 QuoteRight, but according to the article, they are most likely coming from the US. They can only prove that for ones that *can* be traced - that is where the article misleads, by making you think that all the weapons that were recovered were traceable. QuoteQuoteYou can show us the shipping docs that has Fed.gov delivering them to "Mexican Mafia Inc.", then? No? Can't make the claim then, can you? I have a nice stupid question for you too: Can you show me any shipping label with gov.com on it? No? Can't really ask for it then, can you? "U.S. Defense Department shipments to Latin America, known and tracked by the U.S. State Department as "foreign military sales." "Weapons ordered by the Mexican government, tracked by the State Department as 'direct commercial sales.'"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
