Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
06-17-2016, 10:50 AM
#1441
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Sounds to me like the video crew needs to check their privilege and stop their victim-shaming.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2016, 08:35 AM
#1442
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
whoops.
Politics: While showing how easy it is to buy an AR-15, CBS News may have violated federal gun control laws | Best of Cain
...
Politics: While showing how easy it is to buy an AR-15, CBS News may have violated federal gun control laws | Best of Cain
CBS News sent a producer into a gun store in Alexandria, just outside of Washington D.C. Per Virginia law, she provided two items to prove state residency - a drivers license and voter ID card - as well as her passport to prove U.S. citizenship.
She filled out some federal and state forms requiring her name, date of birth, social security number and a few basic questions about any past criminal activity or current restraining orders. And she passed a brief electronic background check
All told, it took 38 minutes and $1,030 for her to walk out of the store legally armed with a rifle, 100 rounds of ammunition and a 30-round magazine.
She filled out some federal and state forms requiring her name, date of birth, social security number and a few basic questions about any past criminal activity or current restraining orders. And she passed a brief electronic background check
All told, it took 38 minutes and $1,030 for her to walk out of the store legally armed with a rifle, 100 rounds of ammunition and a 30-round magazine.
“Ms. Paula Reid came into the shop with cash, claiming she wished to purchase an AR-15 to, ‘undergo training,’” Ryan Lamke, SpecDive’s general manager, told the Washington Free Beacon. “She refused basic, free instruction of firearms safety under the pretense that she was using the firearm for training with a NRA certified instructor.”
“Due to the information provided in the CBS News report filed today, I suspect Ms. Reid committed a straw purchase and procurement of a firearm under false pretenses.”
SpecDive owner Jerry Rapp said that Reid misleading the store about her intention to give the gun over to a third party was a clear violation of the law.
“The law is very clear. When you knowingly attempt to purchase a firearm with the intent of giving it to another person, you are trying to bypass the legal pathway to firearms ownership,” he said. “This, in itself, is a very serious crime. I do not see how any member of the press can get away with potentially committing a felony just to boost their ratings and mislead the general public.”
“Due to the information provided in the CBS News report filed today, I suspect Ms. Reid committed a straw purchase and procurement of a firearm under false pretenses.”
SpecDive owner Jerry Rapp said that Reid misleading the store about her intention to give the gun over to a third party was a clear violation of the law.
“The law is very clear. When you knowingly attempt to purchase a firearm with the intent of giving it to another person, you are trying to bypass the legal pathway to firearms ownership,” he said. “This, in itself, is a very serious crime. I do not see how any member of the press can get away with potentially committing a felony just to boost their ratings and mislead the general public.”
Reply
0
0
06-18-2016, 02:06 PM
#1443
I thought a straw purchase was one individual purchasing a gun with the intention of giving it to someone who could not have legally made that same purchase or is not legally eligible to own the gun. If the other party could have legally made that purchase, it's not a straw purchase.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2016, 03:45 PM
#1444
I thought a straw purchase was one individual purchasing a gun with the intention of giving it to someone who could not have legally made that same purchase or is not legally eligible to own the gun. If the other party could have legally made that purchase, it's not a straw purchase.
Overview for you; https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/str...an-bernardino/
However, in the case above I doubt she'd ever be indicted/convicted because there was no criminal intent.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2016, 05:05 PM
#1445
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
Not according to the Supreme Court in Abrimski V. United States [2014]; Abramski v. United States : SCOTUSblog
Overview for you; https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/str...an-bernardino/
However, in the case above I doubt she'd ever be indicted/convicted becausethere was no criminal intent. she is part of the elitist media.
Overview for you; https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/str...an-bernardino/
However, in the case above I doubt she'd ever be indicted/convicted because
Reply
0
0
06-18-2016, 10:56 PM
#1447
Not according to the Supreme Court in Abrimski V. United States [2014]; Abramski v. United States : SCOTUSblog
Overview for you; https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/str...an-bernardino/
However, in the case above I doubt she'd ever be indicted/convicted because there was no criminal intent.
Overview for you; https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/str...an-bernardino/
However, in the case above I doubt she'd ever be indicted/convicted because there was no criminal intent.
So how do gifts work into this, then? If I buy a gun to give to my friend (who could legally purchase and own said gun), is that legal?
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 11:26 AM
#1449
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Oh, no doubt, the number of deaths caused by a firearm is quite small as compared to the total population. And, again, I go back to my earlier statement that most people who get murdered (regardless of the instrument) tend to deserve it.
The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine
(Cliffs: if you're a scumbag, you're more likely to be shot.)
I just find it fascinating to look at the numbers in relative terms, by comparing the number of firearm-related murders per xxx people within the US to that of other developed nations...
... and THEN look at this in the context of statements such as "The US does not have a gun problem."
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "problem," really.
The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine
(Cliffs: if you're a scumbag, you're more likely to be shot.)
I just find it fascinating to look at the numbers in relative terms, by comparing the number of firearm-related murders per xxx people within the US to that of other developed nations...
... and THEN look at this in the context of statements such as "The US does not have a gun problem."
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "problem," really.
Check out this table (I'd love to imbed it):
Countries Compared by Crime > Violent crime > Rapes. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 11:49 AM
#1450
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Check out this table (I'd love to imbed it):
Countries Compared by Crime > Violent crime > Rapes. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
Countries Compared by Crime > Violent crime > Rapes. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
The link you gave was absolute numbers, not per-capita adjusted. So the US is obviously #1 in it simply because of the immense size of our population, and because of the noted exclusion of certain other large countries due to unreliable reporting.
So the number of rapes per capita in the US is right between Belgium and New Zeland, which is reasonable company to be in. Then put that information into this context:
As compared to its rape-neighbors, the US experiences roughly 5x the number of firearm homicides per capita. That's more than just a general violence problem.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 02:11 PM
#1452
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
Honestly, it's nothing to do with the war on drugs. The war on drugs is bad... but IMO the main cause of gun violence (and high crime in general) is that there are a bunch of big city jurisdictions where they practice catch and release law enforcement. Hordes of drug dealers blasting each other over turf is a 90s thing.
Some of it is overworked prosecutors/judges, some of it is soft judges, some of it is incompetence or laziness and some of it is just bad sentencing laws. But the end result is that you see guys running around committing crimes... and you look at their scoresheet and their priors and you're like "how in the **** is this guy not in prison for life already?" If you go to the average rural jurisdiction and shoot someone but they survive, you get charged with attempted murder, you get life in prison, that's it. You do it in Chicago, you can get plead down to aggravated assault and get sentenced to a year in county, a couple months with good behavior. Project Exile was supposed to help put guys like that in federal prison for long stretches (on felon w/ gun charges) but Obama discontinued that program. Because gun control is about annoying guys like me, not putting criminals in prison.
I can't even count the number of defendants I saw (back when I did crim law) that were in their 20s and 30s and had just gotten a pass, and then another pass and then another... and this whole time they're learning from trial and error how to commit crimes better and better. By the time they finally win the reverse lottery and commit a crime in a jurisdiction with harsh sentencing laws and a hanging judge, they've often racked up 100s of victims.
Some of it is overworked prosecutors/judges, some of it is soft judges, some of it is incompetence or laziness and some of it is just bad sentencing laws. But the end result is that you see guys running around committing crimes... and you look at their scoresheet and their priors and you're like "how in the **** is this guy not in prison for life already?" If you go to the average rural jurisdiction and shoot someone but they survive, you get charged with attempted murder, you get life in prison, that's it. You do it in Chicago, you can get plead down to aggravated assault and get sentenced to a year in county, a couple months with good behavior. Project Exile was supposed to help put guys like that in federal prison for long stretches (on felon w/ gun charges) but Obama discontinued that program. Because gun control is about annoying guys like me, not putting criminals in prison.
I can't even count the number of defendants I saw (back when I did crim law) that were in their 20s and 30s and had just gotten a pass, and then another pass and then another... and this whole time they're learning from trial and error how to commit crimes better and better. By the time they finally win the reverse lottery and commit a crime in a jurisdiction with harsh sentencing laws and a hanging judge, they've often racked up 100s of victims.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 02:29 PM
#1453
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
Why do you guys keep quoting international crime comparisons? It's apples to oranges all the way down. The comparisons literally mean nothing.
Different countries have different cultures, different notions of what behavior is acceptable (especially where sex is concerned) and different rates of reporting, different attitudes of law enforcement to victims and offenders, etc. Once you dig down below the surface you quickly learn that even superficially similar countries have wildly different attitudes, policies, etc. I'm not even talking about crazy sharia law bullshit or asian cultures, I'm talking about European and South American countries that seem superficially similar to ours. They're not.
Reading up on the Julian Assange case, I learned a bit about the rape laws of Sweden. There are things that are illegal (and classified as rape) in Sweden that would make most Americans say "that's not rape! that's insane!" Sweden has a much more female dominated society than the US. This affects all sorts of things like who initiates sexual contact, expectations of parties, what constitutes consent, etc. When Sweden says "we had this many rapes" it means a completely different thing from when the US says it or Saudi Arabia or South Korea says it.
Different countries have different cultures, different notions of what behavior is acceptable (especially where sex is concerned) and different rates of reporting, different attitudes of law enforcement to victims and offenders, etc. Once you dig down below the surface you quickly learn that even superficially similar countries have wildly different attitudes, policies, etc. I'm not even talking about crazy sharia law bullshit or asian cultures, I'm talking about European and South American countries that seem superficially similar to ours. They're not.
Reading up on the Julian Assange case, I learned a bit about the rape laws of Sweden. There are things that are illegal (and classified as rape) in Sweden that would make most Americans say "that's not rape! that's insane!" Sweden has a much more female dominated society than the US. This affects all sorts of things like who initiates sexual contact, expectations of parties, what constitutes consent, etc. When Sweden says "we had this many rapes" it means a completely different thing from when the US says it or Saudi Arabia or South Korea says it.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 02:42 PM
#1454
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
So the number of rapes per capita in the US is right between Belgium and New Zeland, which is reasonable company to be in.
...
As compared to its rape-neighbors, the US experiences roughly 5x the number of firearm homicides per capita. That's more than just a general violence problem.
...
As compared to its rape-neighbors, the US experiences roughly 5x the number of firearm homicides per capita. That's more than just a general violence problem.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 03:46 PM
#1455
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Very true. In relative terms, the homicide rate in the US is quite high (5x that of comparable nations), and yet in absolute numbers it's extremely low (3 per 100,000).
According to people who value private gun ownership highly, 3 per 100,000 is an acceptable loss rate.
According to people who have strongly negative opinions towards law enforcement, a rate of .002-.003 per 100,000 is an unacceptably high rate of police-involved shootings.
It's hard to have reasonable conversations about things like guns when the people on the various sides of the conversation are speaking a different language and using different systems of mathematics.
According to people who value private gun ownership highly, 3 per 100,000 is an acceptable loss rate.
According to people who have strongly negative opinions towards law enforcement, a rate of .002-.003 per 100,000 is an unacceptably high rate of police-involved shootings.
It's hard to have reasonable conversations about things like guns when the people on the various sides of the conversation are speaking a different language and using different systems of mathematics.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 05:40 PM
#1456
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: TAMPA, FL
Posts: 817
Total Cats: 20
If you're honestly trying to have a conversation about guns, then why are all the gun control proposals floated in the past decade aimed at things that don't make a difference except to inconvenience the law abiding?
All I've seen so far from this administration has been:
-discontinue Project Exile, probably the only federal gun control program that actually did any good in terms of getting dangerous scumbags off the streets.
-ask for bans on "assault weapons" (whatever that term means this week) even though rifles are used in under 5 percent of homicides and scary looking semiauto rifles even more rarely
-sell actual assault rifles to mexican cartels, which were used in a ton of crimes, including murders of US citizens
-claim to be asking for background checks (which we already have) but actually trying to pass a law making it illegal to let your friends shoot your guns at the range.
-trying to make everyone on the "terror watch list" and "no fly list" a prohibited person... even though none of the actual terrorists were on a watch list... and a ton of people on the lists aren't terrorists or criminals. For example one guy had his passport stolen by a terrorist (the terrorist subsequently got arrested) but the guy whose identity he stole is now permanently on the watch list because his name is a "known alias of a terrorist"- nevermind that the terrorist himself is sitting in a federal prison and the only person using that alias is the actual person whose name it is. And of course none of these lists have an appeals process or a way to get off the list- the criteria is basically "if the FBI feels like it"
Anyway, my point is that there are tons of good ideas already out there to lower crime (including gun crime) but all we get is a giant middle finger directed at legal gun owners.
All I've seen so far from this administration has been:
-discontinue Project Exile, probably the only federal gun control program that actually did any good in terms of getting dangerous scumbags off the streets.
-ask for bans on "assault weapons" (whatever that term means this week) even though rifles are used in under 5 percent of homicides and scary looking semiauto rifles even more rarely
-sell actual assault rifles to mexican cartels, which were used in a ton of crimes, including murders of US citizens
-claim to be asking for background checks (which we already have) but actually trying to pass a law making it illegal to let your friends shoot your guns at the range.
-trying to make everyone on the "terror watch list" and "no fly list" a prohibited person... even though none of the actual terrorists were on a watch list... and a ton of people on the lists aren't terrorists or criminals. For example one guy had his passport stolen by a terrorist (the terrorist subsequently got arrested) but the guy whose identity he stole is now permanently on the watch list because his name is a "known alias of a terrorist"- nevermind that the terrorist himself is sitting in a federal prison and the only person using that alias is the actual person whose name it is. And of course none of these lists have an appeals process or a way to get off the list- the criteria is basically "if the FBI feels like it"
Anyway, my point is that there are tons of good ideas already out there to lower crime (including gun crime) but all we get is a giant middle finger directed at legal gun owners.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 05:43 PM
#1457
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
According to people who value private gun ownership highly, 3 per 100,000 is an acceptable loss rate.
According to people who have strongly negative opinions towards law enforcement, a rate of .002-.003 per 100,000 is an unacceptably high rate of police-involved shootings.
Second, I believe you've misquoted your stat by 100x. .002 per 100k is 2 deaths per 100 million people, or roughly 7 deaths a year at the hands of police. The police have killed ~500 people so far this year, which puts the running per-capita death rate at ~0.3 per 100k people per year. In absolute terms, that's quite a low figure.
But is it actually low? How do we define "low" here? Can you call 0.3 a low number when it's 20 times the death rate of Denmark and France, 25 times the rate of Sweden, 100 times the rate of Finland, and 200 times the rate of England/Wales?
Reply
0
0
06-19-2016, 11:31 PM
#1459
If you gift a gun that you legally bought to a person you knew to be prohibited, that is not a straw purchase, but you would be in violation of the GCA.
It's perfectly legal to purchase a firearm with your own money with the sole intention of giving it as a gift. PERIOD.
There are other legal issues to take into consideration when gifting a firearm to someone, but the act in and of itself is cool. Other things to consider have to do with state of residence transfer laws, prohibited (or hopefully not) status, taxes (if you're giving somebody a $50k heirloom shotgun, they'll need to claim it), and a few other things.
"Straw purchasing" comes down to question 11a on the 4473. Are you the buyer or not?
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
Read Question 11a, then scroll down later in the document where it describes how to answer each question and read the instructions for 11a. It's right there in the instructions that it's perfectly legal to buy a gun as a gift.
"You are also the actual trasnsferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party."
Reply
0
0
06-20-2016, 09:35 AM
#1460
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Happy Monday, all.
First off, Sav was correct above, in that I misplaced a decimal point while doing the math. The average annual rate of police killings in the US (all killings, not just from firearms) is .02-.03 per 100k, and that is unacceptably high. Contrast this to the overall homicide rate of around 3 per 100k, which is acceptably low.
Anyway, it's summer, and with that comes ice cream and doublethink. So here's an article from the relatively conservative USA Today, proving that gun control laws are effective at reducing overall homicide rates: Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
And one from the relatively liberal Washington Post, proving that gun control laws are ineffective at reducing overall homicide rates: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tate-gun-laws/
First off, Sav was correct above, in that I misplaced a decimal point while doing the math. The average annual rate of police killings in the US (all killings, not just from firearms) is .02-.03 per 100k, and that is unacceptably high. Contrast this to the overall homicide rate of around 3 per 100k, which is acceptably low.
Anyway, it's summer, and with that comes ice cream and doublethink. So here's an article from the relatively conservative USA Today, proving that gun control laws are effective at reducing overall homicide rates: Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
And one from the relatively liberal Washington Post, proving that gun control laws are ineffective at reducing overall homicide rates: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tate-gun-laws/
Reply
0
0
