Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law - Page 6
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 74

Thread: Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law

  1. #51
    Wait what are we even talking about lol

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Hog Jaw, Arkansas
    Posts
    2,275
    Howdy,

    There's several "tactical" errors in your OP.

    Here's a few:

    "Ending Gun-Free Zones On Military Bases"

    This is a Federal Law that was passed by Congress and signed into Law by the POTUS so it can NOT be changed by an EO.

    "Legalizing Silencers".

    Silencers are already legal. Duh!

    "Allow Importation of Collectable Historical Firearms"

    This was Lil George, not Obama.

    Paul

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Howdy,

    There's several "tactical" errors in your OP.

    Here's a few:

    "Ending Gun-Free Zones On Military Bases"

    This is a Federal Law that was passed by Congress and signed into Law by the POTUS so it can NOT be changed by an EO.

    "Legalizing Silencers".

    Silencers are already legal. Duh!

    "Allow Importation of Collectable Historical Firearms"

    This was Lil George, not Obama.

    Paul
    Thanks Paul for the reality check

    Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    8,890
    Lawyers Donate Millions in Pro-Bono Work to Help Gun Controllers Fight Trumpís Pro-Gun Push

    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

  6. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    The artical was an interview with the ATF investigator.
    It was your red herring link. Show us where it says the author actually interviewed the investigator. There are quotes from a purported ATF investigator, but there's no give-and-take interview going on between the author and him, and no source annotations made about how/when/where they obtained the quotations they attribute to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    It's as if I linked to a YouTube video of this investigator speaking and you said it wasn't good enough because it was YouTube and not the ATF.
    No, it's like you linking to an uber-liberal source (PBS/NPR) video of one of their employees talking about what they heard an ATF agent said at one time or another, and then expecting us to 1), take the uber-liberal source's word that what they heard is reliably sourced even though no source annotations are given, and 2), filling in all the blanks that you apparently did for yourself, for ourselves, and giving you credit for having made a valid point about what "the ATF said." The "ATF" said absolutely nothing at your link. An individual who was apparently employed by the ATF at some point in his life, though even that can't be proved by what's at your link, said some stuff about some stuff, 100% devoid of any data or sourcing to prove the stuff he said was stuff of truth and substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    You're being obtuse.
    Sure, if you redefine the word "obtuse" to include any and all adhering to normal practices of sourcing and accuracy, I'm obtuse as all get-out. Paying attention to truth and accuracy in what is promulgated (by you) of proper sourcing is pretty much an antonym to the word "obtuse" though. Being so dull and unthinking and refusing to see the truth of the details of your link fits just fine within the dictionary definition of the word "obtuse."

    I always apply strict scrutiny to the words and posts I waste time responding to around here. You of all people, should know that by now.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    It was your red herring link.
    That's all Im reading of your shitpost.

    I did a google serch and pulled the first link of the atf agent's finding. Thats all I need for my claim. You're welcome to look into it further.

    The main source of firearms for criminals are straw buyers and corrupt FFLs.

  8. Bluestringer IS the Man.
    I suggest blueshell go home or get some real facts, not just the first hit he finds on Google.

    Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

  9. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopkan2582 View Post
    Bluestringer IS the Man.
    I suggest blueshell go home or get some real facts, not just the first hit he finds on Google.

    Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
    Well that is where my portable drive is. To bad my phone doesn't know how to talk to it.

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    ...I did a google serch and pulled the first link of the atf agent's finding....
    I'm really curious to know what search terms you used. I did a search on "source of guns used in crime" and the PBS article was number eight. And to get down to that number eight you have to skip over links that say stuff like:
    .
    Tiny fraction of crimes committed with legal guns
    .
    That's just the title of the link. If you actually go to the link you get info like this:
    .
    In 2004, the government conducted its periodic Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. It found that among inmates who had a gun when they committed their crime (16 percent of all prisoners), about 11 percent had bought the firearm at a retail store, a pawn shop, a flea market or a gun show. Another 37 percent had gotten it from a friend or family member. About 40 percent said they got it illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer or by stealing it.
    The number one link on that search was to Guns Used in Crime - Bureau of Justice Statistics.
    .
    That article highlights, among many other things, statements why ATF gun traces aren't even a remotely reliable way of determining the claims you're making.
    .
    Police agencies do not request traces on all firearms used in crimes. Not all firearms used in crimes are recovered so that a trace could be done and, in some States and localities, the police agencies may be able to establish ownership locally without going to the ATF.
    The BJS paper is based almost entirely on the same ATF gun trace data that Wachtel used. The difference is that BJS doesn't try to make empirical claims based on insufficient data like Wachtel did.
    .
    Also among the top seven links before the PBS article was this article from Newsweek, a very anti-gun source. They also make it clear your claim is wrong.
    .
    But while a majority of owners obtain their guns in transactions that are documented and for the most part legal, the same is not true for criminals."
    .
    That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.
    .
    If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.
    .
    The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion.
    There's also an article by Gunfacts.info that notes that few crime guns come from lawful purchases. But many consider that site as heavily biased toward gun rights so I checked out their source for that claim. Turns out it was from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the National Institutes of Health, an openly anti-gun organization. They also make it clear that crime guns are not primarily sourced directly from licensed dealers.
    .
    Conducted in the fall of 2013, analysis of an open-ended survey of 99 inmates of Cook County Jail focuses on a subset of violence-prone individuals with the goal of improving law enforcement actions. Among our principal findings: *Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase from a gun store, or theft.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    Thats all I need for my claim...
    Oh, good. That means we don't need to read any more fallacious references from you on this topic. Thanks for not making us suffer any further.
    .
    You're welcome to look into it further.
    I already did. That's how we came to discover your claim was false.
    .
    The main source of firearms for criminals are straw buyers and corrupt FFLs.
    Gonna double down on stupid huh?
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    The artical was an interview with the ATF investigator.
    No it wasn't. And NPR didn't portray it as an interview. The only mention of interviews in that article was where it referenced interviews with inmates about guns. You prove yet again that you didn't read my post. The ATF did interview Wachtel for another article, where he made many of the same claims. But since NPR doesn't date their articles it's impossible to determine which article was published first. If you had actually read my post you would have known that Wachtel crafted his report before NICS was put into place.
    .
    I do need to correct myself on one point though. Although one of the sources said Wachtel's report was unpublished, that isn't true. It was apparently published in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, though I'm not sure when. I don't know anything about them. But if you view Wachtel's report on Police Issues, you'll see that what Wachtel was saying only applied to Los Angeles, and not to the country as a whole, just as I said earlier in the post you again apparently didn't read. The title of his report is "Sources of crime guns in Los Angeles, California." That makes it kind of obvious.
    .
    You're being obtuse.

    .
    That's absolutely hilarious coming from you. It's grossly obvious that you deliberately chose to ignore evidence that proved your claim wrong. If we take your statement at face value, that you "pulled the first link", then you deliberately decided to ignore all other data. But it's very obvious you simply chose to ignore all evidence to the contrary of your personal position on the topic. And now you're just choosing to stick your head in the sand and ignore the truth, that the overwhelming facts resoundingly prove your claim to be totally false. That's why I said you're just dismissing an argument rather than admitting you've lost it, and there's no doubt left as to the truth of that remark. You even tried to distort the issue further by claiming I was lying because you said "I read the article I cited in it's entierty before using it", except I was referring to you reading my post, not the article.
    .
    You lost miserably. But you just can't admit it. I'm not even sure why I went to all this trouble to prove it when you obviously have no intention of even acknowledging any facts that don't fit your pre-conceived notions.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  11. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    I'm really curious to know what search terms you used.


    The search is full of supporting articles. The Newsweek link allone gives survay and atf cits.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast