arma virumque cano (et alia)
"Who cares if he himself wasn't shot with guns bought this way?"I don't. I do care that Sung Cho was shot with guns HE had bought himself. Would have been much better if somebody had shot him with their personal gun BEFORE he murdered anybody.But then again, I have a heart and you guys don't.
So, let's review.Cho buys a gun at a gun store, and passes the background checks.Cho goes on a shooting rampage in an area where people are known to be disarmed by rules/laws.And this has what exactly to do with buying a gun at a gun show, since Cho didn't buy his gun at a gun show?
How long until the Brady Camp puts Colin in a short skirt and fishnets and puts him out on a street corner?
I wish you would stop glorifying criminals by continuing to show criminal Colin performing illegal criminal acts on camera.Disgusting.I thought you were about obeying gun laws, not purposefully violating them like Goddard does.
"I thought you were about obeying gun laws"Not at all. MikeB is about OTHER people following gun lawshttp://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/10/mikeb302000_lying_criminal.htmlStatists are allowed to rape and pillage unmolested.
"And this has what exactly to do with buying a gun at a gun show"I never said it did. In fact I said "who cares about that." I don't think Colin said it did.Why do you guys keep putting words in people's mouths and then argue against those words as if the people said them?
Then what exactly is the point of the video, MikeB? The fact that this guy survived a shooting, only to become a criminal sponsored by the Brady bunch?
No, that's not it. The point of the video is private transfers which require no background check are a major glitch in the system. You legitimate gun owners should be the first ones crying for this to stop since this is a big contributor to the gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys.The fact you're not crying the loudest for this to change indicates that you're not the "good guys" you keep claiming to be.
"The point of the video is private transfers which require no background check are a major glitch in the system."How?I reiterate that the guy that committed the crime at VT passed his background check. So, he went through the hoops, yet was still able to get his gun and commit his crimes. How does focusing on a place and method which he didn't use help at all, especially when he would have passed the background check that you are calling for?Cho did "A" and the guy in the video did "B" and you want us to close "B" as an avenue to legally purchase guns, but you (and the guy in the video) are implicitly using the connection to VT, despite the fact that "A" and "B" are not related."You legitimate gun owners should be the first ones crying for this to stop since this is a big contributor to the gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys."You have proof of this, of course? Not just a video of somedood breaking the law to prove that the law can be circumvented if someone wants to, but proof as in actual sales through gun shows, wherein violent criminals or other prohibited persons are obtaining weapons at retail prices without furnishing so much as a driver's license, rather than steal the firearms for nothing?You can provide this kind of evidence to back up this statement: "...since this is a big contributor to the gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys."See, it seems to me that stopping private sales between consenting adults isn't really a concern for me, because I know that passing more laws to prevent bad guys from obtaining guns at gun shows, or through private sales, will not really do anything, except make gun shows less frequent and less well-attended, which will in turn mean less people buying and less gun owners, and higher prices (to make up for less inventory moving). That in turn will likely begin to mean less gun show attendees and less gun show exhibitors, which will further exacerbate the problem.None of this, of course, will stop criminals from stealing guns, which remains the one method of getting guns which presents a pure profit. Stealing the guns costs nothing, and selling it to other criminals nets money.
So, you're contention is that stealing guns is the primary source? Do you have proof of that? You demand proof from me as if my failure to provide it indicates my fallacy, yet you turn around and make statements that you have no proof for.Did you forget about this one? Let's say they're off by 50% or 75%, straw purchases still beat theft.
What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases?According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. Less than 8.5 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases.From the comments section of the very post you made. Your "expert" got his numbers backwards, or lied.