A Vanguard documentary is saying guns can be sold to criminals w/o ID, paperwork

[CreekDog]

and those guns can be sold to criminals who ship them across to Mexico, where they can be used against our own border agents.

-----------

these laws that allow guns to be sold without identification at guns shows by unlicensed sellers aren't giving you freedom.

they're about making people money without paperwork and allowing them to sell to criminals untraced.

i think the push for these kinds of loopholes goes beyond simply concerns for freedom, but instead is simply about money.

http://current.com/shows/vanguard/episodes/season-five/arming-the-mexican-cartels/

[gejohnston]

1. ideology before the whole truth, I'm disappointed

Too jaded to be surprised, but still disappointed. The source of your concern is not the second amendment, it is the commerce clause. If you want private sales to be brokered by FFLs, that will have to be passed by the individual states. What would be ideal is to allow private sellers access to NICS or some other way to allow them to do background checks. Perhaps the ATF can change a regulation to allow FFLs or others to do checks without being a administrative hassle. Those can be worked out by reasonable people who know what they are talking about. That won't solve the problem at hand.

Ask yourself this, why would a multi billion dollar enterprise that builds its own submarines buy one or two semi autos at a gun show when they can buy surplus or stolen full autos in bulk for a lot less?

According to Wikileaks, the US guns are ones sold to the military and "diverted".

Selling weapons to Mexico - where cartel violence is out of control - is controversial because so many guns fall into the wrong hands due to incompetence and corruption. The Mexican military recently reported nearly 9,000 police weapons "missing."

Yet the U.S. has approved the sale of more guns to Mexico in recent years than ever before through a program called "direct commercial sales." It's a program that some say is worse than the highly-criticized "Fast and Furious" gunrunning scandal, where U.S. agents allowed thousands of weapons to pass from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels.

CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the official tracking all those guns sold through "direct commercial sales" leaves something to be desired.

One weapon - an AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle - tells the story. In 2006, this same kind of rifle - tracked by serial number - is legally sold by a U.S. manufacturer to the Mexican military.

Three years later - it's found in a criminal stash in a region wracked by Mexican drug cartel violence.

That prompted a "sensitive" cable, uncovered by WikiLeaks, dated June 4, 2009, in which the U.S. State Department asked Mexico "how the AR-15" - meant only for the military or police - was "diverted" into criminal hands.

And, more importantly, where the other rifles from the same shipment went: "Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles," reads the cable.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/

According to a U.S. State Department cable released by whistleblower site, WikiLeaks, via La Jornada, the most lethal weapons used by the Mexican cartels come from Central American arsenals, not from the U.S. La Jornada cites one cable, reference ID 09MEXICO808, reportedly drafted as a briefing for agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), following an arms trafficking conference that took place April 1 and 2 in Cuernavaca, Morelos. La Jornada reports that the cable states that 90 percent of the high-power weapons, submitted by Mexico law enforcement to the U.S. for tracing, were in fact traced to Central America arsenals. Another State Department cable, released by WikiLeaks and dated January 25, 2010, also discusses the problem of arms trafficking across the southern border. "While there are 30,000 U.S. CBP officers on the 1,926 mile Mexican/U.S. border, only 125 Mexican immigration officials monitor the 577 border with Guatemala," the cable notes.

Remember those guns Ollie North sold to the Contras? Some of them are in that mix too.
http://www.insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/724-newsbrief-mexicos-guns-smuggled-from-central-america-says-wikileaks

When the ATF said "90 percent of the guns submitted for tracing" (which is about 12 percent of total guns) that is what they were talking about.



these machine guns were not straw purchased at B&A Stained Glass and Firearms or "no paper trail" at any gun show

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. excellent and well documented post. thanks.

[burf]

4. Good points. n/t

[DanTex]

6. LOL, the "whole truth"...

The whole truth is that, in many states, guns can easily be bought by criminals without going through a background check. All they need to do is find an unlicensed dealer -- i.e. someone who's not officially in the business of buying and selling guns for a living. And it's easy to find such people, for example, on the internet, or at gun shows.

Moreover, it would be easy to close this loophole, and in fact legislation has been proposed to do just that. Polls show this is supported by large majorities, on the order of 80% or more. Which makes sense, after all, what kind of nut would think you should be able to buy a gun without a background check?

And this has nothing to do with the constitution, it's purely about money and ideology. Can you cite any serious constitutional scholars who think that this would violate the commerce clause, or did you just pick this up on some loony gun blog? I'm guessing loony gun blog...


And the second point is that guns from the US, including guns bought through the gun show loophole, are major contributors to the escalation of gun violence in Mexico. Once again, almost all serious observers are in agreement here. The dissent comes mainly from gun blogs and NRA press releases, neither of which is known for being particularly reliable or honest...

The trace data shows that huge numbers of the weapons come from the US. On the other hand, there is no evidence of weapons coming from anywhere other than the US in significant numbers. Of course, that doesn't stop people like you from offering speculation (the NRA's favorite form of argument) and anecdotes (the NRA's favorite kind of evidence) to the contrary. And to a small extent, you are right, a fraction of the weapons used by Mexican drug gangs come from elsewhere.

But, like I said, the quantifiable hard evidence, along with the opinions of most serious observers (e.g. both Mexican and US agents and officials, and even cartel members) point to the US civilian market as the main source of guns fueling Mexican cartel violence. From a recent Guardian article on the topic.

...
"The United States is the easiest and the cheapest place for drug traffickers to get their firearms, and as long as we are the easiest and cheapest place for the cartels to get their firearms there'll continue to be gun trafficking," said J Dewey Webb, the special agent in charge of pursuing weapons traffickers in Texas at the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
...
According to the US Government Accountability Office, 87% of firearms seized by Mexico over the previous five years were traced to the US. Texas was the single largest source. The US attorney general, Eric Holder, told Congress last month that of 94,000 weapons captured from drug traffickers by the Mexican authorities, over 64,000 originated in the US.

One of the most senior members of the Zetas, Jesus Enrique Rejon Aguilar, said after his capture in July that the cartel is armed by weapons from American gun shops.

"All the weapons are bought in the United States," he said in a video recorded by the Mexican federal police.
...

Yes, I know, FOX and WorldNetDaily tell a different story. Must be that "liberal media bias"...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/08/us-guns-mexico-drug-cartels

[hack89]

8. Each state has to pass legistlation

this is not a Federal issue.

As long as the purchase is between two residents of the state then the federal government has no power to regulate that purchase.

[DanTex]

9. Like I said in my last post:

Can you cite any serious constitutional scholars who think that this would violate the commerce clause, or did you just pick this up on some loony gun blog? I'm guessing loony gun blog...

Given that both guns and people who buy guns through the loophole cross state lines (and even national borders), and contribute to crime and violence across state lines, there is plenty of interstate commerce concern.

The people I've seen making the commerce clause argument against closing the gun show loophole are basically the same loony right-wing gun bloggers who are still bitter about the Civil Rights Act and the New Deal and keep clinging to silly strict constructionism. Maybe you'll surprise me and find some legitimate constitutional scholars who seriously think this kind of law is impossible to enact at a federal level, but as far as I can tell, this is just more pro-gunner mythology.

[LAGC]

44. Closing the private-party "loophole" would only lead to massive straw purchases instead.

It wouldn't accomplish a damn thing to disarm criminals, but only drive more commerce underground.

[ellisonz]

84. It's not even "strict constructionism" per say...

...it's "me-first-ism"

[gejohnston]

10. more logical fallacies and straw men

The whole truth is that, in many states, guns can easily be bought by criminals without going through a background check. All they need to do is find an unlicensed dealer -- i.e. someone who's not officially in the business of buying and selling guns for a living. And it's easy to find such people, for example, on the internet, or at gun shows.

If criminals can find unlicensed dealers, so can the ATF. If the gun goes across state lines, the gun must go to an FFL where the background check will take place and any local laws will must be met.

Moreover, it would be easy to close this loophole, and in fact legislation has been proposed to do just that. Polls show this is supported by large majorities, on the order of 80% or more. Which makes sense, after all, what kind of nut would think you should be able to buy a gun without a background check?

Straw man, I did not say I opposed it. I said it would be best to do it on the state level. Some states do.

And this has nothing to do with the constitution, it's purely about money and ideology. Can you cite any serious constitutional scholars who think that this would violate the commerce clause, or did you just pick this up on some loony gun blog? I'm guessing loony gun blog...

Intrastate private between two individuals not in business. It seems common sense. The Constitution says what the SCOTUS says, for all practical purposes.

And the second point is that guns from the US, including guns bought through the gun show loophole, are major contributors to the escalation of gun violence in Mexico. Once again, almost all serious observers are in agreement here. The dissent comes mainly from gun blogs and NRA press releases, neither of which is known for being particularly reliable or honest...

I didn't know Wikileaks and CBS were part of the NRA propaganda machine. What NRA press releases and gun blogs did I quote? "serious observers" there is a logical fallacy for that. The only ones claiming that "the gun show loophole" has anything to with it are propagandists from VPC, and naive bloggers at Think Progress.

The trace data shows that huge numbers of the weapons come from the US. On the other hand, there is no evidence of weapons coming from anywhere other than the US in significant numbers. Of course, that doesn't stop people like you from offering speculation (the NRA's favorite form of argument) and anecdotes (the NRA's favorite kind of evidence) to the contrary. And to a small extent, you are right, a fraction of the weapons used by Mexican drug gangs come from elsewhere.

The GOA disagrees, that is where the graph comes from. Wikileaks cables says bullshit.

But, like I said, the quantifiable hard evidence, along with the opinions of most serious observers (e.g. both Mexican and US agents and officials, and even cartel members) point to the US civilian market as the main source of guns fueling Mexican cartel violence. From a recent Guardian article on the topic.

Sorry, I'll lean towards Latin American Times and Wikileaks. Like I said, why would they buy pistols and semi autos at some gun show (a place full of cops and ATF) instead of buying full autos in bulk for less. It defies logic.

Yes, I know, FOX and WorldNetDaily tell a different story. Must be that "liberal media bias"...

That is your standard meme, false claims that anyone who disagrees with your conventional wisdom are right wing. Give one example where I used WND as a source.

[DanTex]

12. In other words, no, you can't back your previous post with any actual evidence.

On the loophole question, I specifically asked if you could find any credible constitutional scholar who would back the loony gun blog argument that closing the loophole would violate commerce. In response, you said:

Intrastate private between two individuals not in business. It seems common sense. The Constitution says what the SCOTUS says, for all practical purposes.

So I think it's safe to say that the answer is "no". No credible scholars. Just something you picked up on a gun blog. I'm not really interested in your "common sense" -- constitutional law is a bit more complicated than that. I'm interested in whether you can find any credible constitutional scholars who will back your point of view, or whether this is yet another piece of "common sense" that only exists on loony right-wing gun blogs.


On the Mexico issue, I specifically pointed out that all of the quantifiable evidence points to the US as the main source. Of course, there is anecdotal evidence of some guns coming from elsewhere, for example, your stories from LAT or CBS or wherever. And I know you're big on anecdotal evidence, but I'm not sure why you can't understand that, while some of the guns come from Central America, the quantifiable evidence suggests that most of the guns come from the US civilian market.

There is also speculation on your side of this argument, as there usually is. For example, you might speculate that every gun that isn't traced back to a specific FFL must have come from Central America (despite the fact that officials who run the traces have pointed out that the most common reasons that guns fail traces are clerical or bureaucratic, as opposed the the NRA argument that "they didn't have US markings&quot .

But speculation and anecdotal evidence don't add up to much. They certainly don't add up to quantifiable evidence. And that's why I am able to cite credible experts and non-right-wing news outlets pointing out that the available evidence points to the US civilian market as the main source for Mexican drug guns. And in the meantime, you are stuck trying trying to patch together different pieces of anecdotal evidence and speculation, and drawing strange conclusions that seem only to be shared by pro-gunners and right-wing outlets.

[gejohnston]

13. more false claims about gun blogs

So I think it's safe to say that the answer is "no". No credible scholars. Just something you picked up on a gun blog. I'm not really interested in your "common sense" -- constitutional law is a bit more complicated than that. I'm interested in whether you can find any credible constitutional scholars who will back your point of view, or whether this is yet another piece of "common sense" that only exists on loony right-wing gun blogs.

can you get it through congress? Think the current SCOTUS will let it fly? Sorry, what either of us think really matters. I doubt you can point to any scholar that says it will.

On the Mexico issue, I specifically pointed out that all of the quantifiable evidence points to the US as the main source. Of course, there is anecdotal evidence of some guns coming from elsewhere, for example, your stories from LAT or CBS or wherever. And I know you're big on anecdotal evidence, but I'm not sure why you can't understand that, while some of the guns come from Central America, the quantifiable evidence suggests that most of the guns come from the US civilian market.

The evidence only says of US origin as in US manufacture. You did not point to any evidence to support your claim, only conventional wisdom.

There is also speculation on your side of this argument, as there usually is. For example, you might speculate that every gun that isn't traced back to a specific FFL must have come from Central America (despite the fact that officials who run the traces have pointed out that the most common reasons that guns fail traces are clerical or bureaucratic, as opposed the the NRA argument that "they didn't have US markings&quot .

More projecting as usual. You are the one speculating. How many are traced to a specific FFLs?

But speculation and anecdotal evidence don't add up to much. They certainly don't add up to quantifiable evidence. And that's why I am able to cite credible experts and non-right-wing news outlets pointing out that the available evidence points to the US civilian market as the main source for Mexican drug guns. And in the meantime, you are stuck trying trying to patch together different pieces of anecdotal evidence and speculation, and drawing strange conclusions that seem only to be shared by pro-gunners and right-wing outlets.

you are the one speculating and providing anecdotal evidence. More false claims. I'm quoting the GAO, Wikileaks, experts. None of these are the NRA, as you falsely claim. If anyone is stuck, it is you trying to cling to an ideology and conventional wisdom and project the lack of evidence on to others.

[DanTex]

16. About that wikileaks cable.

I doubt you've actually read the cable. Most likely, you just read about it on a gun blog, and believed whatever the gun blog said, kind of like the way you get you constitutional law "knowledge".

Here's the cable, and the passage you are referring to:

Fueling Mexico's violence is the illicit flow of
weapons and ammunition to criminal organizations from the
U.S. firearms market, as well as munitions from Central
American military stocks. While estimates vary regarding the
percentage of U.S. commercial weapons recovered in Mexico,
approximately 90 percent of all firearms seized and traced
are from the United States. In contrast, at least 90 percent
of military origin weapons ) such as grenades and light
anti-tank weapons ) are traced to Central American military
stocks. Seizure data also suggests that the weapons sought
by DTOs have become increasingly higher quality and more
powerful. These include the Barrett .50-caliber rifle, the
Colt AR-15 .223-caliber assault rifle, the AK-47 7.62-caliber
assault rifle and its variants, and the FN 5.57-caliber
pistols better known in Mexico as the &cop killer.8

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09MEXICO880.html

Now I'm starting to understand why you never want to cite the cable directly, only indirectly via gun blogs or right-wing news sources! It's because even your treasured WikiLeaks cable points out that "approximately 90 percent of all firearms seized and traced are from the United States." Gee, I wonder how the gun blogs forgot to mention that part.

The part that the gun blogs like to quote out of context is the next sentence: at least 90 percent of military origin weapons ( such as grenades and light anti-tank weapons ) are traced to Central American military stocks". Note this is not 90% of all weapons. It is only 90% of weapons of military origin, meaning that of the subset of weapons that are known to come from militaries, most of them come from the Central American Militaries, rather than the US military, or the Russian military, or the Chinese military, etc.

Which, of course, is exactly what anyone would expect. If you are going to source weapons from a military, it's going to be a lot easier to get them from Central American militaries. But, as the sentence before that pointed out, most of the total firearms used by the cartels are not of military origin. Most of them are of civilian origin, in fact, they originate in the US civilan market.

Which is exactly my point. The main source of weaponry is the US civilan market. There are also other sources of guns, but nobody, not even your very own Wikileaks source argues that most of the guns come from anywhere except for the US.

So.... you lose again. The lesson is, you shouldn't believe everything (anything, really) you read on gun blogs.

[sarisataka]

37. What does that 90% mean... (long rant)

Analogy:
I say "I went to the market and 90% of the fruits and vegetables I examined were strawberries"
You ask "How many tables did you look at?'
I say "About 10%"
You say "So 90% of the fruits and vegetables are strawberries"

True? Maybe
I could have been at a strawberry farm market that also sells, say, apples. The ratio may hold true and 90% were indeed strawberries.
Or I could have been at the grocery store and did not look at corn, potatoes... In that case strawberries would be 9% of the total.

I hope this illustrates that we have only established end the end points of 9% and 90%. To further narrow it down requires more information or we are just guessing.

So back to the statement: "approximately 90 percent of all firearms seized and traced are from the United States."
IIRC they traced 12% of seized firearms (and from a limited area but we will ignore that to keep it simple).
That gives us the end points of 10.8% and 90%.

And I note it is not 90% of all weapons, there is a military component. But...

The main source of weaponry is the US civilan market. There are also other sources of guns, but nobody, not even your very own Wikileaks source argues that most of the guns come from anywhere except for the US.

I do not see that statement. I see...

While estimates vary regarding the
percentage of U.S. commercial weapons recovered in Mexico,
approximately 90 percent of all firearms seized and traced
are from the United States.

Talking about commercial weapons because

In contrast, at least 90 percent
of military origin weapons ) such as grenades and light
anti-tank weapons ) are traced to Central American military
stocks.

addresses military weapons

Barrett .50-caliber rifle [civilian or military. I would argue very flag raising for a multiple civilian side purchase], the Colt AR-15 .223-caliber assault riflecivilian although seems to be used refer also to the visually identical M-16, which is military], the AK-47 7.62-caliber assault rifle[military] and its variants[civilian or military depending on which variant], and the FN 5.57-caliber pistols[civilian- I am not aware of any military that has yet adopted these pistols]

Further from the cable:
FIREARMS-TRAFFICKING ISSUES

¶11. (SBU) Mexican political leaders are not shy about
reminding us that U.S. demand for drugs, money laundering,
and illegal arms flows from our side of the border help fuel
Mexico's drug war. With respect to firearms trafficking, the
GOM has identified a number of areas where they would like
the U.S. to do more, particularly on our side of the border
to interdict weapons before they reach Mexico. Senior GOM
officials have asked that we be more aggressive in enforcing
existing laws regarding the sale and exportation of weapons.
This includes cracking down on &straw purchasers8 who buy
guns on smugglers, behalf in the United States. They have
also pushed for renewing the import ban on semi-automatic
assault weapons that expired in 2004 [emphasis added]

Mexico would like us to enforce existing laws...
F&F did the EXACT opposite of what Mexico was asking. We allowed straw purchases- which were reported by dealers to the ATF and allowed them to pass into Mexico- without notifying Mexican authorities or having any mechanism to keep tracing the weapons other than recovering them after having been used in crimes
And Mexico would like the assault weapon ban reinstated- I respectfully disagree that it would have any great effect.

Is the US a source of weapons and is there a problem- yes, I agree
Are we the driving factor and main source? Only in our demand for drugs and the money it provides to the cartels. I do not believe the cartels obtained

since December 2006; 18,000 of which are assault
rifles, AK-47, AR-15s

by buying them one at a time at gun shows or the back of Bubba and Billy-Bob's truck at the local Stop-and-Rob


I relinquish the soap box

[DanTex]

69. But what you and gejohnston are both missing...

...is that there is no evidence of guns coming from elsewhere in significant quantities. I agree that (obviously) we don't have trace data for every single weapon used in Mexican drug violence. What we do know is that of the guns that are recovered, submitted, and successfully traced, 90% come from the US civilian market, there is no evidence of comparably large numbers of guns coming from any other source.

A lot of pro-gunners like to pretend that many or most of the weapons that either are not submitted for tracing, or that were not traced successfully, must have come from somewhere other than the US. But, again, there is no evidence for this, and there is no reason to believe this is the case. The primary reasons why weapons don't get traced are clerical and bureaucratic (not, as pro-gunners like to pretend, that there were "no US markings" or that the weapons "obviously did not come from the US&quot . So the idea that all or most the untraced weapons come from dramatically different sources than the weapons that were traced is pure speculation.

And that is why the "Central America" theory exists mainly on gun blogs and right-wing news outlets. Not only does it make sense that the weapons would come from the US -- a huge, easy, and legal market providing unlimited numbers of AR-15s, AK-47s, 50-cals, etc. just across the border -- but the trace data, incomplete as it may be, backs this up. Yes, technically it is possible that only 10% or so of the guns came from the US -- that every single gun that was either not recovered or not traced for whatever reason actually came from somewhere else. But not likely. Oh, and by the way, according to your fruit stand example, the endpoints would by 9% and 99% (not 9% and 90%).

For example, in this discussion gejohnston cited the wikileaks cable in an attempt to refute the theory that most guns come from the US (post 10: "Wikileaks cables says bullshit.&quot . But the wikileaks cable does no such thing. In contrast, the Guardian article I cited quoted an ATF official by name, as well as an informant from the Zeta cartel, both of whom cited the US as the main source of guns. And this is just one of many articles coming from legitimate news sources (as opposed to FOX and WorldNetDaily) with similar content.


As far as the F&F conspiracy theories go, that's a different discussion. But I'll say this. "Mexico" is not one person, but to the extent that Mexico itself can be thought of as having an opinion, Mexico most definitely wants tighter gun laws in border states. "Mexico" (i.e. Mexican officials) most definitely want the Assault Weapons Ban renewed. And Mexico understands that 2000 weapons is a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount of weapons that flow across the border.

I have on idea where you get the idea that "Mexico" backs the NRA talking point, that all we need to do is "enforce existing laws". Again, pretty much every expert who is not an NRA spokesperson agrees that tighter gun laws are necessary, for example, that we need an explicit gun trafficking law rather than just "lying and buying" which is difficult to prosecute. In fact, this very point was made by ATF agents testifying to congress, much to the chagrin of Darrell Issa, who wanted to keep the testimony as a pure witch-hunt rather than actually discussing what we could do to stem the flow of guns to Mexico.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. There are simple solutions

1) Institute 100% inspections of all vehicles crossing the border in either direction.
2) Escalate the "war on drugs" into an actual war by establishing a 1 mile border zone patrolled by AH-60s, MQ-9s and AC-130s equipped with infrared targeting. Destroy anything larger than a dog that moves.
3) Expand the F&F program to include the sale of AKs with embedded transponders and self destruct explosives such as RDX or TATB. Patrol the Mexican border states with MQ-11s searching for the transponder signals. Weapons located at known cartel locations are detonated.

[sarisataka]

78. Good reply

with interesting discussion points

...is that there is no evidence of guns coming from elsewhere in significant quantities. I agree that (obviously) we don't have trace data for every single weapon used in Mexican drug violence. What we do know is that of the guns that are recovered, submitted, and successfully traced, 90% come from the US civilian market, there is no evidence of comparably large numbers of guns coming from any other source.

Has anybody looked? The US is much easier to obtain data from than Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, Indonesia... And if these are guns seized near the border it would make sense that the majority would show US origin.

The primary reasons why weapons don't get traced are clerical and bureaucratic (not, as pro-gunners like to pretend, that there were "no US markings" or that the weapons "obviously did not come from the US&quot . So the idea that all or most the untraced weapons come from dramatically different sources than the weapons that were traced is pure speculation.

I do not expect 100% tracing. Also US marking would be fairly meaningless as we are the #1 exporter so many 'US' guns could come through a third party. Also a significant portion of the US market is imported guns. I would not hold Germany accountable for guns sold through US dealers.

And that is why the "Central America" theory exists mainly on gun blogs and right-wing news outlets.
<snip>
Yes, technically it is possible that only 10% or so of the guns came from the US -- that every single gun that was either not recovered or not traced for whatever reason actually came from somewhere else. But not likely.

Agree, mostly, again. It is the imprecise language I mentioned that becomes very important. To an uninformed journalist, diplomat, average Joe/Jane... if it looks like an AK it is an AK. For another analogy- if it has four wheel and an engine it is a car- Ferrari or rusted out Yugo makes no difference. While both perform the same basic function, their is a huge gap in the possibilities.
The same with the guns. Civilian legal AK and variants are widely available in the US. They can kill quite well but are limited in their maximum potential. A real AK-47 is what is used the world over by professional and rag-tag armies. Easy to use, no training past point and shoot and nearly indestructible- it makes a distinctive sound when fired at you(couldn't resist:dunce It is a bullet hose and far more deadly than its cousin. You cannot determine which you are facing without a close inspection- unless you are having 10 bullets head your way every second.

according to your fruit stand example, the endpoints would by 9% and 99% (not 9% and 90%).

mea culpa

Back to Guatemala... I just read an article that the Zetas have formed an alliance with a local drug gang consisting of members who formed in US prisons and then deported. It appears they have de facto of northern Guatemala. Being that the Zetas themselves started as renegade Mexican military, the Central American Pipeline is not a complete pipe dream.

I will agree that the US is more than 10% of the total but the often tossed off 90% I believe to be equally misleading. It is not taking into account the true military weapons and it may be a 'tainted' sample but is presented as the true percentage of all cartel weapons. We do agree, I believe, that is not the case; we disagree as to what the middle number may be.

F&F is different and I dislike wearing the hat but what was the purpose of such a ridiculous operation? I could buy incompetence, having worked in the government a long time, but to say 'We have no idea who authorized this' is ludicrous. Where was the information going if no one authorized it and no one was aware it was going on... That level speaks to me of coverup.

There is a very political bend to the congressional investigation but it is on both sides. Everyone up to Holder basically says "We broke many laws, supplied the cartels and indirectly killed at least one federal agent. But don't worry about that... we need more laws and money"
If your financial adviser came and told you "I lost all of your money gambling on dog fighting but don't worry about that, you need to invest more" would you do it?
I understand at that level of LE you sometimes need to do 'shady' things but with clear accountability, limits and goals. I would strongly support a gun trafficking law but why would I trust enforcers who cannot keep track of know strawmen to adequately enforce that law? Show me you can use the tools you have and where they fall short, then ask me to give you more authority.

[DanTex]

81. Disagree about a few things.

I will agree that the US is more than 10% of the total but the often tossed off 90% I believe to be equally misleading. It is not taking into account the true military weapons and it may be a 'tainted' sample but is presented as the true percentage of all cartel weapons. We do agree, I believe, that is not the case; we disagree as to what the middle number may be.

I don't think they are "equally misleading". The 10% comes from assuming that every single weapon which was recovered but not successfully traced came from a non-US source. The equally misleading number on the high side would be 99%, which would assume that every non-traced weapon came from the US.

The 90% number, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that the traced weapons constitute an unbiased sample. Of course, this assumption is not going to be entirely true, but like I said, there is no good reason to believe that it is horribly biased.

The thing is, we just don't know exactly what fraction of the guns come from the US. So it is necessary to draw the best possible conclusion from the evidence available. And, unfortunately, a lot of details about the tracing process have not been made clear. However, despite this uncertainty, as I've said before, there is very little evidence backing the various theories put out by the pro-gun side, that most guns come from the Southern border, or that they come from corrupt Mexican military officers or deserters, etc.

On top of that, every expert that I've seen quoted has pointed to the US as either the main source, or at the very least a major source of guns to the gangs. This includes ATF officials such as the one quoted in the Guardian story, Mexican officials, academics, etc. In contrast, the speculation about other sources has come from severely biased sources, such as FOX News or NRA spokespersons.

F&F is different and I dislike wearing the hat but what was the purpose of such a ridiculous operation? I could buy incompetence, having worked in the government a long time, but to say 'We have no idea who authorized this' is ludicrous. Where was the information going if no one authorized it and no one was aware it was going on... That level speaks to me of coverup.

Given that anyone involved in the gunwalking is at risk of losing their job or even going to prison, it's entirely understandable why some people are unwilling to speek freely. You don't need any conspiracy theories to explain this, just self-preservation.

Although we don't have all the information, here the most likely explanation is simply that some ATF officials decided that the ends justified the means -- let a few (thousand) guns go today in order to stop even more guns from going over in the future. This may have been a miscalculation, or a dumb idea, or an unethical plan, but that doesn't mean it was a conspiracy. And frankly, the idea that Holder orchestrated F&F in order to inflate the trace numbers and justify more gun control is just plain stupid. The numbers don't need any inflating.

And then there is the unconscionable behavior of the NRA in this area. Unlike the ATF, the NRA isn't contributing to Mexican gun violence due to mistakes or bad planning. They are doing it for ideological reasons. First, they have consistently worked to ensure that the ATF is under-resourced -- the ATF hasn't had a permanent director for several years. They opposed the rule requiring reporting of multiple semi-auto rifle sales in border states. They are opposed to the anti-gun-trafficking legislation that the ATF agents testifying in front of congress. Given the fact that the Republicans in congress have done everything in their power to make it as difficult as possible for the ATF to fight gun trafficking, is it really so surprising that the ATF would resort to these kinds of questionable or risky tactics?

[sarisataka]

83. We can agree to disagree

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2012, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Every one in the mess has an agenda, even Mexico. Without transparency I take any "facts" with a large dose of salt.

I can understand your reasoning on F&F. But then the AG should grow a pair, clean house and rebuild his department's reputation. Unless he is involved.. Then we have a problem.

If the ATF can show it is capable and trustworthy, the NRA would be forced to moderate or loose its less extreme members. It is the perceived anti-gun attitude of the ATF and administration that enables the NRA. Even very pro-gun people admit Obama has made no moves to restrict ownership yet the perception is there and things like F&F keep that distrust (or paranoia if you wish) going.

[Straw Man]

38. On what do you base your conclusion ...

... that the military weapons are a subset of total seizures and not a separate and distinct category? The first reference is to "all firearms seized and traced." Is a grenade a "firearm"?

[sarisataka]

40. My basis is

That it refers to firearms, then military weapons then mixes a list of military and civilian firearms. There is no indication of does 'all firearms' mean 'all commercial' or 'all retrieved' and does military weapons mean 'only grenades...' or 'military firearms and other weapons.'

The language is imprecise. As it relates more to diplomacy and crime fighting than a precise identification of weapons recovered I do not hold that to be a fault. I am pointing out that it should be taken as intended- a high level summary of the situation.

Edit-sorry straw man I thought you had replied to my post. I'll leave it as it elaborates on my thought process.

[Straw Man]

41. I was asking DanTex.

I think he took a gigantic leap of faith and made several unfounded assumptions. I agree that the language is "fatally" imprecise, and that no accurate conclusion can be drawn from it.

[gejohnston]

54. one more time

It does not say commercial market, it says US.
I was quoting the GAO, Stratfor.com, McClatchy, CBS. Can you show me which one of these are gun blogs? Can you point to a gun blog I cited on this issue?
The Wikileaks cable, like the GAO report said, 90 percent of guns given to the ATF and traced are from the US. That is not 90 percent of all guns, as you claim. It is more like 12 percent of all guns.

So, you lose......again, as usual. The lesson is, you should read and think objectively about matters important. One more thing:
FBI Uniform Crime Report is not right wing
McClatchy is not WND
CBS is not Fox
The GAO is not an NRA press release
Stratfor.com is not a gun blog.

[DanTex]

67. The boy who cried "wikileaks"...

Sorry, but your "sources" don't actually say what you claim they do. Wikileaks is one example. Back in post 10, you were all confident "Wikileaks says bullshit", but then when I checked up on your source, it turns out that Wikileaks said nothing of the sort. It actually agreed that most of the guns traced come from the US. Yes, the weapons of military origin don't come from the US civilian market, as everyone already knew, but the guns do, including ARs and AKs and 50-cals etc.

The fact of the matter is that every expert I've seen quoted on this topic, along with the trace data, all support the conclusion that the major source of guns for Mexican drug gangs is the US civilian market. For example, the Guardian article I cited quoted an ATF agent and a Zeta informant. But there are plenty more articles like that from legitimate sources.

You on the other hand, are struggling to find any legitimate news story to back your point of view. So instead, you start quoting things out of context and insisting that a bunch of sources support your point of view even though they actually don't. Like the wikileaks cable. Not a good practice. If you cry wikileaks too often, it's gonna hurt your credibility...

[gejohnston]

77. Post 18 put it best

Sorry, but your "sources" don't actually say what you claim they do. Wikileaks is one example. Back in post 10, you were all confident "Wikileaks says bullshit", but then when I checked up on your source, it turns out that Wikileaks said nothing of the sort. It actually agreed that most of the guns traced come from the US. Yes, the weapons of military origin don't come from the US civilian market, as everyone already knew, but the guns do, including ARs and AKs and 50-cals etc.

actually they do. Most of the guns from the US do not come from the US civilian market. Most are sold to the Mexican military and police and disappear.

The fact of the matter is that every expert I've seen quoted on this topic, along with the trace data, all support the conclusion that the major source of guns for Mexican drug gangs is the US civilian market. For example, the Guardian article I cited quoted an ATF agent and a Zeta informant. But there are plenty more articles like that from legitimate sources.

ATF PR flack and a "former Zeta member". Sorry, not really experts.

You on the other hand, are struggling to find any legitimate news story to back your point of view. So instead, you start quoting things out of context and insisting that a bunch of sources support your point of view even though they actually don't. Like the wikileaks cable. Not a good practice. If you cry wikileaks too often, it's gonna hurt your credibility...

Really? I am not quoting anything out of context. Your reading and critical thinking skills suck. I have not been the only one to explain it to you. All of the evidence put together more than proves my point. You are basing your entire argument on on anecdotes from one newspaper article than accusing me of "using anecdotal evidence". Oh yeah, a couple of propaganda quotes from VPC.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Actually, he pretty well gutted your screed (nt)

[DanTex]

20. LOL. Thanks for sharing your brilliant insight, "professor"!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. You are most welcome

Those in the middle of the scrum often do not realize when their cause is lost.

- Mexican gangs are not arming themselves from private sales
- There are significant legal and political hurdles to checking every private sale
- You are assuming that the checks are adequate (Gifford shooting)

[ellisonz]

85. That dog don't hunt. n/t

[rl6214]

50. You anti-gun zealots and your "gunshow loophole"...

There is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer". In order to be a dealer, you must be licensed, if you are not licensed, you are not a dealer, you are just a private seller, your own words (someone who's not officially in the business of buying and selling guns for a living). How can someone not officially in the business be any sort of "dealer"?

"Moreover, it would be easy to close this loophole, " Can't be done, you cannot regulate what is done out of someones kitchen, garage, living room or wherever else, regardless what YOU say.

"Polls show this is supported by large majorities, on the order of 80% or more."

Cite please, and not from the bradies or maig.

[krispos42]

65. Wow.

This should be an OP!

[DWC]

71. Objectively Factual and extremely well stated. Thanks ! n/t

[burf]

3. The documentary let the ATF spew their

90% line on numerous occasions and never called them on it. There was also no mention of the number of weapons that were coming into Mexico from other Central American countries, or weapons that were sold to the Mexican military and then "somehow" wound up in the cartels hands.

[slackmaster]

5. It's illegal for ANY PERSON to transfer a firearm to someone who is prohibited from buying it

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Scroll down to Section 922(d).

[DanTex]

7. Not quite

It's illegal for anyone to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person. As long as the seller can claim they didn't know or had no reason to suspect that the buyer is a criminal, the seller is off the hook. And in particular, no background check is necessary.

This works out great for criminals, especially criminals with prior felony convictions, who wouldn't be able to pass a background check, but still want guns. You see, the NRA wants all criminals to have guns, not just the ones who haven't committed a felony yet.

So, convicted felons can instead just go to an unlicensed dealer, for example on the internet or at a gun show, where many unlicensed dealers congregate. THey just have to make sure not to volunteer the information that they are a convicted felon.

[gejohnston]

11. the hits keep coming

It's illegal for anyone to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person. As long as the seller can claim they didn't know or had no reason to suspect that the buyer is a criminal, the seller is off the hook. And in particular, no background check is necessary.

It is more accurate to say no background check can be done.

This works out great for criminals, especially criminals with prior felony convictions, who wouldn't be able to pass a background check, but still want guns. You see, the NRA wants all criminals to have guns, not just the ones who haven't committed a felony yet.

The background check system was the NRA's idea. Or they can just go to NYPD. Why would they go to a gun show full of cops and ATF.

So, convicted felons can instead just go to an unlicensed dealer, for example on the internet or at a gun show, where many unlicensed dealers congregate. THey just have to make sure not to volunteer the information that they are a convicted felon.

it would be easier for them to go to a flea market in most states. There are at least three at the flea market up the road from me. They are always there on the weekends and there are not as many cops and ATF like at gun shows. But "gun show loophole" sounds nicer for propaganda.

[DanTex]

14. In other words, I was right.

But you don't want to admit that I was right and your fellow pro-gunner was wrong. This is the pro-gunner omerta in action once again.

So instead you find some nits to pick and speculate about what venues criminals might prefer for exploiting the loophole, while ignoring the major point here, which is that criminals can in fact buy guns without going through a background check, and that this could be changed by federal law, and that the NRA and the pro-gunner community at large strongly opposes such a change even though there is no rational argument in favor of keeping the loophole open.


Oh, and claiming the background check was the "NRA's idea" is horribly misleading. The NRA was opposed to the Brady Bill, and only came out in favor of instant background checks as a compromise because they wanted to avoid waiting periods. For example, if an abusive husband gets angry at his wife, the NRA didn't want him to have to wait for a few days before buying a gun because this cool-off period might give him a chance to reconsider (and it might also give the wife a chance to get away), and thus the gun industry would have missed out on this gun sale. It's very important for the NRA to allow people to buy guns in the heat of the moment.

[oneshooter]

15. So what new laws would you propose to remedy this?

Surely you have some ideas to prevent this from happening. Lets hear them.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[DanTex]

17. Umm... I would require background checks on private sales.

Have you been paying attention at all to this thread?

[oneshooter]

19. Yep. But most would ignore my questions.

How do you propose to accomplish this. Federal law already makes it against the law to purchase firearms from out of state without going through a FFL dealer. NCIS is closed to all but FFL dealers.
It would be up to each state to enact "dealer only" laws to prohibit/control private sales.
Are you willing to get enough support in each state to cause a change in the law? If so then where is your petition in your home state?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[DanTex]

21. Umm... I'd accomplish it with a federal law, requiring background checks...

...for all gun sales, whether or not the seller is an FFL. One possibility is to require all gun sales to go through an FFL, to perform the background check. But I'm not really interested in the technical minutia.

[oneshooter]

25. So you would rather bitch and gripe instead of doing something.

Typical of the hoplophobes among us.

[DanTex]

27. Well, we're both posting on an internet forum right now, so...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Such a federal law...

...would be unconstitutional. MAIG (mayors against illegal guns) and others have recognized this. That's why we don't already have such a law.

Article 1 section 8:

The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's time to recognize that what you want:
- is not possible
- isn't happening
and
- is just plain wrong

Accept the fact that a law regarding sales between private sellers is a state matter...


...or just demonstrate (again) for us that you are a loser who can't understand this and go stomp your feet and cry.

[DanTex]

29. Like I said above...

Can you cite any serious constitutional scholars who think that this would violate the commerce clause, or did you just pick this up on some loony gun blog? I'm guessing loony gun blog...

Can you? Or are you just another pro-gunner regurgitating right-wing talking points from gun blogs.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. As stated above...

...MAIG agree with this position. While there are sections of their site that may qualify as "loony gun blog" this info is correct.

[DanTex]

34. Can you find a link?

From what I understand, MAIG is in favor of federal legislation requiring background checks on private sales. For example here's a press release in favor of proposed house legislation:

The legislation will also require that all gun sales, including those by private sellers, be subject to a background check.

http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr023-11.shtml

Are you saying they are supporting legislation that they think is unconstitutional?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. The legislation they support...

...is a combined state/federal approach which, among other things, would give states added incentives to improve reporting on mental defectives to FBI database used in NICS. The MAIG report "Fatal Gaps" does acknowledge the unconstitutionality of the federal government mandating such compliance by federal law. Unfortunately my google skills have failed me in locating where they acknowledge federal regulation of private intrastate sales being unconstitutional. I believe their efforts are split among federal and state focused efforts to unify standards of reporting among states for mental and criminal issues as well as work on both levels to require that private sales be subject to NICS checks.

The federal aspects of most of these laws (I think) have mostly to do with incentives to states that comply.

[DanTex]

39. Here's the MAIG report "Fatal Gaps":

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf

I don't see anything about how the Federal Government can't close the loophole in there.

On the other hand, here is a recommendation from the MAIG webpage http://www.fixgunchecks.org/background-checks

Congress must close all the loopholes and require a background check on all gun sales in America.

Is this really so complicated? It sure seems to me that MAIG thinks congress would be able to close all loopholes and require a background check on all gun sales in America if it wanted...

Meanwhile, neither you nor any other pro-gunner here has been able to find any credible source to back the argument that the federal government can't close the loophole at a national level due to constitutional problems.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. Okay, please check this carefully.

This is the link from the "fixgunchecks" page to which you linked titled "Download the Mayors' Plan to Fix Gun Checks (PDF)":
http://fixgunchecks.s3.amazonaws.com/191/7a/f/43/a_plan_to_prevent_future_tragedies.pdf

Quoting:

The system needs to be fixed. Creating a comprehensive system to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people requires two steps:
Step one: Get all the names of people who should be prohibited from buying a gun into the background check system.
Step two: Close the loopholes in the background check system by requiring a background check for every gun sale.

Read the entire plan. No where is it stated that the answer to step two would consist of a single federal law binding all private citizens.

The reason a "comprehensive system" is required is because the type of legislation you propose at the federal level is unconstitutional.

[DanTex]

46. In other words, you were completely wrong.

In post 28 you said:

Such a federal law...
...would be unconstitutional. MAIG (mayors against illegal guns) and others have recognized this.

But, then when I went and checked up on your claim, turns out to be fiction (shocker! a pro-gunner making things up...LOL). MAIG does not actually say that a federal law would be unconstitutional. You are speculating about what a "comprehensive system" means, and you are also speculating that the reason a "comprehensive system" is needed has to do with constitutionality.

But these are your words, not the words of MAIG. You're just making all that up. MAIG said nothing of the sort.

Anyway, I'm still looking for anyone here to find a credible source to back the pro-gunner talking point that it would be unconstitutional to close the loophole at the federal level.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. Have nice life...

...in your fantasy land.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. Just some supporting data

Individual states have implemented the NICS (Brady) measures. All states incorporate in their system, a check of the FBI's database. These laws are state based because of the constitutional limits on the federal government.


State laws:

PA < http://www.pali.org/docs/Pennsylvania_Uniform_Firearms_Act.pdf > (the law itself)

On June 13, 1995, Governor Tom Ridge signed Act 17 into law. The law amended Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA). To date, the Uniform Firearms Act has been amended by Act 66 of 1995, Act 5 and Act 77 of 1996, Act 70 of 1998, and Act 121 of 1998.
Pursuant to the Uniform Firearms Act, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) has developed and implemented a firearm background check program, the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS). PICS became operational on July 1, 1998.

VA < http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C2 >

§ 18.2-308.2:2. Criminal history record information check required for the transfer of certain firearms.

This is as near as I can come to justifying the legal reasoning for what I said about state law applying for this. Should you not see the logic here, and wish to continue your denial, feel free. I'm done discussing this aspect.

Not that I consider wikipedia as solid and reliable.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause >

Thus the federal government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools, as in Lopez. This was the first time in sixty years, since the conflict with President Roosevelt in 1936–37, that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.

[DanTex]

68. More speculation, no constitutional scholar...

Sorry, but speculation by a NRA bubbler is worth exactly zero. Wake me up when you find any credible expert who backs your point of view...

[Clames]

72. You should take your own advice.

Because you have posted absolutely nothing credible to back up anything except for snark. Gunshow loophole...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. Keep sleeping.

Please! Maybe you'll dream up some more lies.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. That is not possible under current law.

Mechanizing it would be fairly difficult since safeguards would have to be built in.

Going FFL would require changes to all states that allow private sales. One of the problems with that are places like DC which do everything they can not to have FFLs open for business there and CA which while not as extreme is headed that way

I can't see a Federal mandate passing any time soon though I tend to think it would survive under the Commerce Clause.

[DanTex]

26. Right, that's why I want the law to be changed...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Is it practical to expect that amount of change in the foreseeable future?

I would not have a problem with check for private transactions, but the government agencies will fight it tool and nail.

The citizens in the states that do not have mandatory use of an FFL for transfer will fight it tooth and nail locally.

I doubt it would would pass in either house, but if it did, it would be a Commerce Clause fight at the SCOTUS level, though I think it would be sustained.


IOW, while it would not be as hard as creating world peace, its not a real likely thing to happen any time soon.

[DanTex]

33. I'm in favor of what's right, not what is currently popular.

I consider that to be a positive characteristic.

However, in this case, you are dead wrong that most citizens would fight this tooth and nail. Polls show that closing the private sales loophole it is supported by majorities around 80%.

I'm sure that the militant gun nuts would fight it tooth and nail, as would the gun lobby, and since the Republican party is virtually 100% in the pocket of the gun lobby, it's a difficult fight. I don't know what SCOTUS would rule, but I have yet to hear any credible constitutional scholar make any issue out of the constitutionality problem, only internet gun bloggers. But given the right-wing majority, who knows.

Of course, these same problems arise on all issues, not just guns. The Republican party is very right-wing, and very ruthless, and very powerful, and are opposed to basically any kind of progressive change at all. Progress is hard on all fronts, not just guns.

But that doesn't change the fact that the private sales loophole should be closed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. IMHO...

...lots of folks accept the idea of having private sales require an NICS check by some means.

[CokeMachine]

24. We have that requirement here in California

and I can assure you that criminals go about their business completely unarmed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Let me also say...

...that some states require this now. I find this entirely reasonable. MAIG has made efforts to level state laws and standards in this and other regards.

[gejohnston]

42. re read the first paragraph of post one

What would be ideal is to allow private sellers access to NICS or some other way to allow them to do background checks. Perhaps the ATF can change a regulation to allow FFLs or others to do checks without being a administrative hassle. Those can be worked out by reasonable people who know what they are talking about. That won't solve the problem at hand.

I did not say it was not a good idea, nor did I say I opposed it. I did suggest ideas on how to do it.

So instead you find some nits to pick and speculate about what venues criminals might prefer for exploiting the loophole, while ignoring the major point here, which is that criminals can in fact buy guns without going through a background check, and that this could be changed by federal law, and that the NRA and the pro-gunner community at large strongly opposes such a change even though there is no rational argument in favor of keeping the loophole open.

I never said they could not, but the ATF says they don't. I don't know any pro gunners that would seriously oppose the idea on principal (other than the guys at the flea market)

Oh, and claiming the background check was the "NRA's idea" is horribly misleading. The NRA was opposed to the Brady Bill, and only came out in favor of instant background checks as a compromise because they wanted to avoid waiting periods. For example, if an abusive husband gets angry at his wife, the NRA didn't want him to have to wait for a few days before buying a gun because this cool-off period might give him a chance to reconsider (and it might also give the wife a chance to get away), and thus the gun industry would have missed out on this gun sale. It's very important for the NRA to allow people to buy guns in the heat of the moment.

Wrong. The NRA wanted instant check from the beginning. Brady wanted the 5 day waiting period to do it the old fashioned way. The Brady version was struck down by the SCOTUS because it violated the 10A (unfunded mandate on local governments).

The NRA was opposed to the Brady Bill, and only came out in favor of instant background checks as a compromise because they wanted to avoid waiting periods. For example, if an abusive husband gets angry at his wife, the NRA didn't want him to have to wait for a few days before buying a gun because this cool-off period might give him a chance to reconsider (and it might also give the wife a chance to get away), and thus the gun industry would have missed out on this gun sale. It's very important for the NRA to allow people to buy guns in the heat of the moment.

That is totally sick and disgusting bullshit.

[Straw Man]

43. You must be aware ...

For example, if an abusive husband gets angry at his wife, the NRA didn't want him to have to wait for a few days before buying a gun because this cool-off period might give him a chance to reconsider (and it might also give the wife a chance to get away), and thus the gun industry would have missed out on this gun sale. It's very important for the NRA to allow people to buy guns in the heat of the moment.

... that waiting periods don't exempt people who already own guns. First-time gun buyers are the only ones that might be deterred from a "heat of the moment" crime, but everyone is subject to the waiting period. It's hard to escape the conclusion that these laws are less about preventing crime and more about petty harassment of gun owners.

[Hoyt]

47. Better than coddling gun owners/accumulators.

Guns need to be viewed like smoking stinking cigars in public, or wearing a swastika as a fashion accessory.

[rl6214]

52. More from the peanut gallery...

A laugh a minute.

[sarisataka]

55. So if...

I wake up on the white power side of the bed tomorrow are you telling me I cannot wear a swastika around my neck?

[Hoyt]

56. If you want to wear a swastika with your gun, it's legal. But

that's a shitty way to be, imo.

[sarisataka]

57. my opinion as well

But it is a right, wether we like it or not.
You dislike the current status of rkba and seem to think it is ok to harass those who wish to exercise that right.
Since we do not like white supremacists should it be ok to harass their1A rights just because we think they waste valuable oxygen?

[Hoyt]

58. I don't like businesses that rip people off, wall Street types, among others. Point is that it's

Like cigarettes - needs to be branded as undesirable from a number of perspectives.

[sarisataka]

60. Something we agree on

Our opinion of wall street. They redefine obscene to the point where XXX porn should be allowed on prime time.

[sarisataka]

53. You have managed to turn the argument 180 degrees

For example, if an abusive husband gets angry at his wife, the NRA didn't want him to have to wait for a few days before buying a gun because this cool-off period might give him a chance to reconsider

The debate was not about the man. It went more like the abusive husband who did not want a divorce and realizing that a restraining order does not make a great shield. After putting the wife in the hospital and doing a few days or weeks in jail he may decide to 'complete' the job. The man typically can best a woman with a gun, club, knife, hammer or his bare hands. The woman is the one who is at a disadvantage and a waiting period may just be a couple of days too long. Hence the idea of an instant background check- put forth by the NRA- to prevent such a situation. The man would be prevented from buying a gun because of being on record for domestic violence.

[Hoyt]

59. How much did they have to pay legislators to believe that crud?

[sarisataka]

61. 7.2 million in 2010 elections

Which I still find surprisingly low considering how the NRA is supposed to be a money machine. Cash-wise they are less than a drop in the bucket.

The problem was that the scenario is real and several examples were presented. The Brady answer was something to the effect of "Oh well, just call the cops". Not great if you are the woman locked in the bedroom while your 250 lb psycho soon-to-be ex is chopping at the door with an axe...


Now which crud is it? Did the NRA want instant checks so someone who just had a fight could run to Guns R Us and get a gun to kill the other in a furious rage or did they want instant checks so made up victims could arm themselves against a person out to kill them in a furious rage?

[Hoyt]

62. If we are going to play "not greats" - howsabout 6 year old shoots friend with

Mom's gun?

I think the negatives associated with guns -- particularly in public -- far outweigh any positives the NRA and other gun advocates can concoct.

[sarisataka]

63. Shall we ask...

someone who has had to use a gun to defend them self if the positives out weigh the negatives?

[Hoyt]

64. First off, a bunch of uses of guns aren't necessary. Other than a few cases,

where something awful, regrettable happens, a gun is likely not necessary or of real use.

But, ask away.

[Hoyt]

73. Ask this mom who slept safely with gun under pillow until 4 year old shot son shot himself yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101492560

[gejohnston]

74. I saw that

Like I posted there:

If you have small children and decide to keep a loaded pistol, please keep it in one of these.
http://www.gunsafes.com/Pistol-and-Handgun-Safes.html
I hope the kid pulls through.

[sarisataka]

76. Tragic...

... and ridiculously negligent.

The mother should have known better, but... I do hope they both can recover.

I can see a possibility of shall issue combined with a training requirement that could satisfy both sides. Something I will ask the group on the "Dark Side" board; see what kind of argument I can start there

Maybe I can bring a proposal to debate here

[DanTex]

66. Yes, I know all about the NRA fantasy world.

This particular NRA talking point is yet another case of conservative men pretending that their right-wing policies are really in the best interest of women. Guns are good for you! Really they are!

The research and statistics clearly show, of course, that guns are used in domestic violence against women far more often than women use guns to protect themselves from an abusive husband. And that a gun in the home is a significant risk factor for escalating domestic violence. And that women in the US are at far higher risk of intimate partner homicide than in the rest of the industrialized world, due to gun homicide. Etc.

And this is probably one of the reasons that women are more likely to support stricter gun laws than men. It's a sick irony that one of the NRA's favorite propaganda memes is a woman using a gun to protect herself from a male attacker.

[sarisataka]

75. You are correct, it never happens... oh wait...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.T4G9nHmjl6I

Well that was a one time occurrence, she probably could have reasoned with her attackers

Let's go tell her she is safe now and can get rid of those guns as she is 4.876653 x n^3 times more likely to be shot with it herself...

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-05/justice/justice_oklahoma-intruder-shooting_1_court-clerk-oklahoma-woman-prosecutors?_s=PM:JUSTICE

What could go wrong? (more )

Ok, enough cute smilies-
I will agree that women are victims of domestic violence far more than women but I hear that gun statement all of the time without reference. Is that 'just one of those things everyone knows' or is there an unbiased report that proves it?
My totally unscientific research (checking crime reports in my local paper over the last year) shows no male on female gun use in domestic violence cases. (No female gun use either) Since not all domestics make the paper this is an unknown sample of the total in one metro area.

Does anyone have proof of gun use in domestic violence one way or another. And if it comes from one of the usual suspects, left or right, is there neutral supporting documentation?

[DanTex]

80. For example...

Here's one study that surveyed domestic violence victims from battered women's shelters. They found, among other things, that 32.1% had had a handgun used against them, while only 3.1% had used a handgun in self-defense. For long guns, the percentages are 15.9% versus 1.4%.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448464/

There are other studies about this topic if you google a little. For instance, here is a study that finds that access to a gun is a risk factor associated with femicide in abusive relationships.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12835191
Here is a study finding, as several other studies have found, that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of homicide, and also that the increased risk is significantly higher for women than for men.
https://msrc.fsu.edu/system/files/Wiebe%202003%20Homicide%20and%20suicide%20risks%20associated%20with%20firearms%20in%20the%20home-%20a%20national%20case-control%20study.pdf

And here's a survey paper with a bunch of statistics regarding guns and intimate partner violence, for example:

Despite a general emphasis on danger posed by strangers, intimate partners with guns present the greatest fatal risk to women. Women are more than twice as likely to be shot by their male intimates as they are to be shot, stabbed, strangled, bludgeoned, or killed in any other way by a stranger (Kellermann and Mercy 1992). A handgun is the weapon of choice. In addition, as shown in Figure 4, the most recent data available indicate that as homicides of women by strangers have decreased, the number of homicides by intimates with handguns has increased.

http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ortner/docs/sorenson_doc10.pdf

In short, women in abusive relationships might be the single worst demographic that the pro-gun side could use to argue in favor of easier access to guns.

[sarisataka]

82. Thank you

There is more to the issue than merely owning a gun. My instruction has been moving more towards women, not by any design.

I like to give as complete information as possible. We are more alike in the opinion that not everyone should have a gun than you may suspect. Our reasoning to that point is different.
I have not seen many of these; it will make for some interesting reading.

I may even find things to add to my curriculum.

[rl6214]

51. "You see, the NRA wants all criminals to have guns, not just the ones who haven't committed a felony

What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?