Virginia Tech victim shows how easy it is to buy guns at gunshows.

[zanne]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/colin

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Lightly buttered, no salt on mine, please.

:popcorn:

[Gumbo]

14. .

.

[marmar]

2. K&R, before the DU gun posse comes with Glocks a'blazin'

:kick:

[eqfan592]

3. lol, you can't counter the facts we give you, so you label us the "gun posse."

Cute.

EDIT: I also think it's funny that you were the one to post the story originally. Did you ever bother to read the replies?

[rl6214]

17. Yeah

We saw this shit when it was posted last week

[rd_kent]

36. Don't you mean "before the DU gun posse comes with FACTS a'blazin'?"

Because thats what we ALWAYS come with, FACTS. Not hyperbole and strawmen and red herrings, like you. Facts, you should try them sometime, they really are neat-o.

[eqfan592]

4. Seen it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270522

You'll find this story was nicely picked apart already.

EDIT: I really like Euromutt's breakdown right here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=270522&mesg_id=270947

[zanne]

5. Of course it was picked apart.

You guys remind me alot of a man I talked to at the polls last month. I was holding a sign for Health Care Reform and he started arguing with me. I said "Did you know that we're only number 17 in the world as far as health care is concerned"? He said "No, we're not. We're number one. Where did you get that statistic"? I said "I got that statistic from the World Health Organization. He said "Oh...them". Then he walked away.

You're just like the guy at the polls. If we present facts that you don't like, you'll just say "It's not true", or "I don't like where you got your statistics; I like my source better". Anything to deny the truth of what we're trying to tell you.

[eqfan592]

8. Actually, you're far more akin to that person than we are.

I can't tell you how many times statistical evidence is presented to people like you and you just ignore it out of hand. You guys really take denial of reality to religious levels.

Provide an example of an anti-gun statistic that you or someone else has provided where the ONLY counter that was ever provided by the DU RKBA group was to question the source, and where NOTHING was stated in regards to either the relevance of the information (not including the source of the information) or the methodology of its collection/processing.

[Euromutt]

19. It was picked apart because it had glaring flaws, which I pointed out

How about a substantial refutation of the points I made in the previous thread on this subject?

There's visible editing in three of the four incidents shown, so we don't know what was left out (though we do know something was left out).

What we do know was left out was an acknowledgment of the fact that Seung-hui Cho did not buy his guns at a gun show; he bought them from a federally licensed dealer, and passed two federal background checks (which he wouldn't have if the Commonwealth of Virginia had reported Cho's being adjudicated "a danger to himself and others" to NICS in a timely manner). So what special stake does Colin Goddard--"Virginia Tech victim"--have in this? Nothing much that I can see, so why use him except as a) a blatant (and possibly misleading) appeal to emotion, and b) because the Brady Campaign couldn't find a victim or close relative of a victim of a mass shooting carried out with a gun acquired by the shooter at a gun show?

How about showing that you're not actually the one simply gainsaying stuff you'd rather not hear?

[slackmaster]

6. Actually, he showed how easy it is to film people engaging in lawful sales at gun shows

The same transactions would be much more difficult to film if they happened at random locations like peoples' kitchens, garage sales, church parking lots, etc. (Which is what would happen if private sales at gun shows were banned.)

Of course the Brady Campaign doesn't offer any workable solutions to the private-party transfer "loophole". Making NICS available for private sellers would be a good start IMO.

[eqfan592]

10. slackmaster, you know any solution that doesn't involve...

...demonizing guns and their owners can't POSSIBLY be a good solution!

:sarcasm:

[zanne]

7. I'm sure you're happy in your own little world. nt

[eqfan592]

9. It would do you some good to take a hard look in the mirror. (nt)

[pipoman]

12. Wow, do you have multiple personalities?

This is your response to yourself? I think this zanne is more sensible than the one who posted the OP..

[MercutioATC]

11. Amazing! Just about as easy as it is to buy one from ANY private seller!

Who'd have thought??

:eyes:

[proteus_lives]

13. Ahh Brady Bullshit.

Nothing smells riper.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. It's easy to buy a boat at a boat show. I think that's the point.

[beevul]

16. Ahh, yes, the brady bunch...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

18. This has been discussed before

Right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270522

I'm just going to repost the points I made in that thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=270522&mesg_id=270947).

First item: Seung-hui Cho didn't buy his guns at a gun show. He bought them from an FFL, and underwent NICS checks for both purchases. Since he'd been adjudicated mentally incompetent to possess a firearm, NICS should have nixed the sales, but because the Commonwealth of Virginia was tardy submitting the relevant records to the FBI, the sales were approved. Gun shows did not allow the Virginia Tech shootings to happen.

Then there's this video of purchases at gun shows, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q .

No, the private sellers aren't conducting background checks, because the law doesn't allow them to, though our buddy Colin makes out like the private sellers are choosing not to conduct NICS checks. Now, regarding the claim of "not requiring identification," let's run through the cases:

1) Dayton, OH
The seller asks for ID, but is told the buyer "left it in the car." The seller proceeds to make a good faith effort to ascertain that the buyer is not ineligible to purchase the weapon, and the only way the sale would have been illegal was if the buyer had lied. Not optimal, but then again, the buyer could have presented a forged ID with the same result. The point being, if the transfer had been illegal, it would have been entirely due to intent to willful deceit on the buyer's part.

2) Forest Lake, MN
We don't see the seller ask for ID, but notice that at 2:40, there's a break between shots in the footage. The bit edited out may have been the part where the seller did ask, and got shown, appropriate ID. I can't prove that it is, but I don't have the raw footage.

3) Richmond, VA
Again, we don't see the seller ask for ID, but again, at 3:30 there is a break between shots in the footage. See item 2). Moreover, we don't see the cash as Colin is handing it over, and the camera even veers away from the seller for a moment, making it entirely possible that Colin pre-empted the seller by handing over his driver's license with the cash, and took it back without the camera registering it.

4) San Antonio, TX
Again a break between shots, at 4:14. I think I'm starting to see a pattern in the editing.

So there we have it: four gun shows, one verifiable incident of a seller handing over the weapon without seeing any ID, and even he asked questions. Now go figure what Colin and the Bradies might have chosen not to show us: how many sellers did they approach before they found one at each show who didn't ask to see ID in a manner that could readily be edited out? How many gun shows did they visit where they got no footage that could be edited to give the impression the seller didn't insist upon ID?

We don't know, and we have no way to know what the Brady Campaign isn't showing us. We do know this video is based to some extent on dishonesty by omission. As I've already noted, Cho didn't buy his guns from a private seller; he bought them from an FFL, and passed two NICS checks, so exactly why Colin should be concerned about private party sales at gun shows is unclear. Seems to me the Bradies used him (and he allowed himself to be used) because they couldn't find a victim--or a close relative of a victim--of a mass shooting that was carried out with a firearm the shooter had personally bought at a gun show.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Don't you realize it's perfectly OK to present edited videos as truthful representations?

Just like the ACORN videos...oh, wait.

[aikoaiko]

20. Why not comment on your linked story, Zanne?

What do you think it really shows and what, if anything, should be done?

[rd_kent]

22. Just another hit and run post from a gun grabber.

Typical bullshit.

[Euromutt]

23. In fairness, the thread was probably moved from GD

It happens rather a lot: someone starts a thread in GD; as soon as a mod notices it has anything to do with guns, it gets moved into the Gungeon, and the original poster loses interest once it disappears from GD.

And, predictably, it happens quite frequently some other non-Gungeon frequenter looks in GD for a thread on the topic, doesn't see one and, not realizing it's because the previous one got moved, starts a new thread on the same topic, which then also get tossed in here, lather, rinse, repeat.

[eqfan592]

24. The OP responded while it was in the guns forum.

Otherwise I'd say you made a great point, because this is often the case, but I didn't see this until it was here (in fact, given that there was only one reply to it when I spotted it, and I was fairly actively monitoring the forum, it may have been even posted here originally), and the OP responded after I first posted, so the OP knows where it's at, and simply isn't willing to respond, but would rather continue to deny reality.

[Euromutt]

29. You're right; so much for my giving the OP the benefit of the doubt

This thread just got another unrec.

[zanne]

27. I don't argue with crazy people. nt

[Euromutt]

28. How very persuasive

When you run out of rational argument, dismiss people who disagree with you as insane. Well, you sure convinced me of the merits of your position.

[rd_kent]

31. Hahaha! The only response to your own post is that they do not have a rational argument? You are a

joke. And not the funny kind. There are plenty of rational arguments throughout this thread and you did not respond. You have shown that you have an agenda, are not interested in intelligent discussion and are just looking to post flame bait. Welcome to irrelevancy....

[PavePusher]

33. Ummm... Responded to wrong person...? n/t

[rd_kent]

35. Whoops, yes. Sorry, it was meant for Zanne, the OP that has not responded to his own post except to

accuse others of not having an argument.

[PavePusher]

37. Just making sure it wasn't me...

who was drinking to much.

:toast: :beer:

[pipoman]

38. Did you notice her post #7..she responded to her own OP

very rationally. :rofl:

[aikoaiko]

30. True, you mostly agree with crazy people given your previous anti-gun, anti-rkba posts.

Zanne, try harder to be a contributing member of DU and those whom you are trying to persuade may take you seriously.

[eqfan592]

32. zanne, you rely far to much on "bumper sticker slogan" arguments.

As do many of the folks who agree with you around here. You refuse to dig deeper into these issues, and instead are perfectly happy sucking the the surface level BS from the Brady Campaign and the VPC.

And when your "bumper sticker slogan" arguments are torn apart with rational arguments, instead of coming up with rational arguments of your own, you call us crazy.

Oh yes, you are very much like that anti-health care reform guy you mentioned earlier. Exactly like him, in fact, when it comes to this issue (and maybe even other issues). There's something about this particular issue that can turn otherwise rational people into drolling-mouthed zealots.

You're always welcome to break the mold, zanne.

[SteveM]

39. And yet... you are here. (nt)

[taurus145]

26. Reminds me of Michael Moore's

"I got a gun for opening a CD at the bank!"

He edited out the fact that he filled out a 4473 (probably got the number wrong - I can never remember it) and provided proper ID in order to be eligible for the offer. He edited it to appear as though he simply opened a CD and they handed him the rifle, no questions asked.

Same - Same.

[benEzra]

34. Of course it's easy to buy guns at gunshows. Usually with a background check and BATFE Form 4473.

How many gun shows have you ever been to? 99.9% of the guns there are dealer sales.

The same rules apply there as apply to a gun store. Federal law requires all dealers to conduct background checks on all gun sales, new or used; private individuals selling just one or two guns may or may not, depending on whether their state requires it (my state requires it for handguns but not long guns).

And I'm sure you noticed the selective editing and jump-cuts in the Brady Campaign video, and didn't assume they were actually showing you whole conversations...