nothing needs refuting,
the crap you posted does not support any additional gun laws
hat some people want more gun laws doesn't establish they are needed-especially if the groups represent big government idiots or anti gun pillowheads like the Million Moron March (which was clinton astro-turf)
and I guess you haven't figured out that Denying someone a gun from a FFL retail operation means nothing if the criminal is
1) NOT prosecuted for PERJURY
2) obtains a weapon from other sources
Once again, you provide nothing but numbered opinions. That's sad.....
Gun shows without background checks are the second leading source of guns used in criminal activities, if you stop that you eliminate the one of the biggest sources for criminals to get guns. That should not be that hard for anyone to reason out for themselves.
stop telling falsehoods I posted studies from the government saying that criminals got less than 1 percent of their guns from gun shows. You haven't posted squat
"Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation." (p. xi)
Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers," Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (June 2000)
Close Gun Show Loophole, Facts and Statistics
A primer for TurtleDude and others uniformed about the gun show loophole:
"To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.
Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole."
Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
but what does the cite to the ATF say
This includes a link to the actual study by the ATF:
"In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation."
Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
they cited their own investigations
sorry that doesn't cut it
First you wanted proof of actual ATF numbers, and when they are provided, you say they don't count because they are ATF numbers. Do you realize how asinine that sounds?
what is asinine is braying about how those "background checks stopped 1.3 million" when its really a lie when you look at the end result
capiche?
Thanks Mr. TurtleDude without a lick of proof, ever! I will go with the ATF numbers. Capiche?
have you read the posts on this board? lots of bitching about the NRA. DId you see all the insane loons protesting against the NRA on the news. why is it that almost every person demanding more gun control liberal or more left?
I) I posted a government study demonstrating LESS THAN .7 percent (that is less than 7 in a thousand) convicted criminals stated they got a firearm from a GUN SHOW-most got them from friends and family or from the black market
II) you constantly talk about 1.3 million people BEING DENIED a retail sale but you never deal with the fact that very FEW are ever prosecuted for PERJURY
I) I posted a government study demonstrating LESS THAN .7 percent (that is less than 7 in a thousand) convicted criminals stated they got a firearm from a GUN SHOW-most got them from friends and family or from the black market
II) you constantly talk about 1.3 million people BEING DENIED a retail sale but you never deal with the fact that very FEW are ever prosecuted for PERJURY
Ah, you've taken your numbering of your opinions up a notch, to Roman Numerals!!!!
Still doesn't change the ATF numbers I documented. And btw, I am all for increasing resources available to police enforcement for increased prosecutions for perjury. In order to be effective this will have to be a multi-pronged effort. That together with preventing gun show sales without a background check will significantly reduce the access to guns by criminals and crazies.
You know, ironically enough, under my state laws making a false statement under oath is not perjury. You have to make two irreconcilable statements both under oath to be convicted of that so as long as you stick with your lie even when it is proven a lie, you are okay. Attempting to commit a felony, which possession by a felon is, however would be the way to go on those cases though and if gun stores were required to keep surveillance videos (I assume most do anyway) it becomes not an attempt the second they touch the gun they want to purchase.
I cannot dispute your comments about your state law. HOwever, under FEDERAL law lying on the 4473 is FEDERAL Perjury and it is a FELONY.
How many more ATF agents, FBI Agents, and Federal Prosecutors do you want to hire to go after everyone who gets rejected? Just curious....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?