Good gun related fact checking at CNN

[LittleLebowski]

Not kidding, Jake Tapper did a good job.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/06/democract-gillibrand-beto-obama-gun-claims-fact-check-orig.cnn

[blues]

Not kidding, Jake Tapper did a good job.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/06/democract-gillibrand-beto-obama-gun-claims-fact-check-orig.cnn

I think he's the one journalist on the network who seems to actually care about what is true and has little tolerance for overt b.s.

(Based on the limited number of times I've seen his show or reports.)

That said, I know nothing about his personal politics or any agendas he may have.

[ccmdfd]

Pretty good.

However he did say that you can purchase firearms without a background check at gun shows and if you purchase on the internet

cc

[0ddl0t]

Meh, still got a bunch of facts wrong (NRA didn't put any pressure on trump for the bump stop ban, automatic weapons can still be legally purchased by new owners, pushed the myth of the gun show loophole, etc)

[mtnbkr]

Pretty good.

However he did say that you can purchase firearms without a background check at gun shows and if you purchase on the internet

cc

Neither statement is untrue. I've done both. Granted, I wasn't purchasing from dealers, but I did buy a gun at a gun show without a background check and I did arrange to purchase guns, by way of local transaction, via the Internet. The defense in both cases is that there is no law requiring a background check when purchasing guns from private individuals via a face-to-face transaction.

Chris

[ccmdfd]

Neither statement is untrue. I've done both. Granted, I wasn't purchasing from dealers, but I did buy a gun at a gun show without a background check and I did arrange to purchase guns, by way of local transaction, via the Internet. The defense in both cases is that there is no law requiring a background check when purchasing guns from private individuals via a face-to-face transaction.

Chris

All well and true but the way the media typically frames this, it's that you can just jump online and buy as many guns as you want from anywhere and not have to pass any kind of checks (and same for all of those huge tables they love to show at gun shows when they make that claim about gun show purchases).

cc

[BillSWPA]

Amazing to find a liberal news source fact-checking Democrats and actually making a reasonably good effort to get it right, even if his own facts were not perfect.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

NRA didn't put any pressure on trump for the bump stop ban

From the NRA, they told him to ban bump stocks to stop an otherwise unstoppable AWB.

Also, Tapper took Candidate Cory B. apart on gun control. Bill Maher, a gun owner for emergencies, but not a committed RKBA person, pointed that out to Charles Blow - Blow blew his top on that. Fun to watch.

[fly out]

Neither statement is untrue. I've done both. Granted, I wasn't purchasing from dealers, but I did buy a gun at a gun show without a background check and I did arrange to purchase guns, by way of local transaction, via the Internet. The defense in both cases is that there is no law requiring a background check when purchasing guns from private individuals via a face-to-face transaction.

Chris

I get what you're saying, but you didn't "buy a gun on the internet." Full stop. When this country was free(-ish), you'd order a gun from the Sears Roebuck catalog and your mailman would leave it on your porch.

[JHC]

I think he's the one journalist on the network who seems to actually care about what is true and has little tolerance for overt b.s.

(Based on the limited number of times I've seen his show or reports.)

That said, I know nothing about his personal politics or any agendas he may have.

He is is also taking blowback from the left in recent days for his "bad question" to Corey Booker: "How would your proposed law have prevented the Virginia Beach shooting?" Booker was flummoxed by the question.

On a range of topics I've seen him and other CNN figures grill Democrats pretty hard. The Sunday grilling of Bernie case in point. For example from a female anchor: Words to the effect "Walmart is paying $4 over the Federal minimum. So why pick on them when Congress can't pass a law to raise it?"

[ralph]

I get what you're saying, but you didn't "buy a gun on the internet." Full stop. When this country was free(-ish), you'd order a gun from the Sears Roebuck catalog and your mailman would leave it on your porch.

So true..That's the way it should be..plop your cash down on the counter, pick up your heater, and walk out the door, and that time, most people could give a shit less.. Thanks to the Kennedy asassinations, congress decided "something"should be done..and here we are..

[Casual Friday]

From the NRA, they told him to ban bump stocks to stop an otherwise unstoppable AWB.

I want you to pause, take a deep breath, and think about what you wrote.

If this supposed AWB was unstoppable, how would banning bump stocks stop it? Why would the people behind this AWB give up on their wet dream legislation, which is supposedly unstoppable, in exchange for a spring loaded piece of plastic?

[LittleLebowski]

I want you to pause, take a deep breath, and think about what you wrote.

If this supposed AWB was unstoppable, how would banning bump stocks stop it? Why would the people behind this AWB give up on their wet dream legislation, which is supposedly unstoppable, in exchange for a spring loaded piece of plastic?

The man who said that doesn't lie. The context and additional information (which is limited to our private Site Supporters section) matters. Not getting "need to know" on you but it was posted there for a reason.

[BillSWPA]

He is is also taking blowback from the left in recent days for his "bad question" to Corey Booker: "How would your proposed law have prevented the Virginia Beach shooting?" Booker was flummoxed by the question.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read about people getting criticized for essentially asking politicians how their stated policy positions will help achieve their stated goals. It does not reflect well on the state of education in this country.

[VT1032]

Neither statement is untrue. I've done both. Granted, I wasn't purchasing from dealers, but I did buy a gun at a gun show without a background check and I did arrange to purchase guns, by way of local transaction, via the Internet. The defense in both cases is that there is no law requiring a background check when purchasing guns from private individuals via a face-to-face transaction.

ChrisTechnically correct, but highly misleading. It's not Amazon for guns. At best, it's Craigslist for guns... They aren't being shipped to your doorstep and you still have to conduct a face to face sale. As far as I know, FFL's still need to conduct a nics check at gunshows.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Technically correct, but highly misleading. It's not Amazon for guns. At best, it's Craigslist for guns... They aren't being shipped to your doorstep and you still have to conduct a face to face sale. As far as I know, FFL's still need to conduct a nics check at gunshows.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Correct, and anyone in the business of buying and selling guns must have an FFL, regardless of whether sales take place at a gun show. Guns can be sold from a personal collection from time to time, but anyone regularly renting tables at various gun shows without an FFL is inviting some unpleasant BATFE scrutiny.

In some states, ALL transfers must go through an FFL, with narrow exceptions (depending on the state) for transfers between husband and wife, parent and child, or grandparent and child.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Casual Friday]

The man who said that doesn't lie. The context and additional information (which is limited to our private Site Supporters section) matters. Not getting "need to know" on you but it was posted there for a reason.

Ok.

[Tamara]

At best, it's Craigslist for guns... They aren't being shipped to your doorstep and you still have to conduct a face to face sale.

I'm unaware of the law that states the sale must be face-to-face. As long as both private citizen non-FFLs reside in the same state, and the gun doesn't leave the state, there's no legal barrier (federally, at least) to shipping it rather than hand-delivering it.

[joshs]

I'm unaware of the law that states the sale must be face-to-face. As long as both private citizen non-FFLs reside in the same state, and the gun doesn't leave the state, there's no legal barrier (federally, at least) to shipping it rather than hand-delivering it.

Handguns are non-mailable items under federal law, (no USPS for non-FFLs) but otherwise it is technically legal. Practically, it can be more complicated because many carriers want the recipient to be an FFL.

[Tamara]

Handguns are non-mailable items under federal law, (no USPS for non-FFLs) but otherwise it is technically legal. Practically, it can be more complicated because many carriers want the recipient to be an FFL.

Indeed this is true. (I've filled out my fair share of 1508s. :) )

[joshs]

Indeed this is true. (I've filled out my fair share of 1508s. :) )

I figured, I'm just a stickler for details :) I've also repeatedly had to address the "dangerous loophole" of intrastate online sales despite any evidence that this is a common way that guns are diverted to prohibited purchasers.

[Tamara]

I figured, I'm just a stickler for details :) I've also repeatedly had to address the "dangerous loophole" of intrastate online sales despite any evidence that this is a common way that guns are diverted to prohibited purchasers.

Oh, it's one of those things that is almost totally hypothetical. I've been hip-deep in the gun biz since the early Nineties and I've never actually seen it happen between non-prohibited people, even.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is slightly off topic but came to me at lunch with the old toots. If it is the case that closing loopholes, sales dodges and all kinds of nefarious dealings along with UBCs doesn't significantly decrease violent gun crime - then the solution is obvious. As in the UK, ban, confiscate, mandate turn in of almost all firearms.

In fact, the implementation of the intermediate measures to control sales might just be designed to fail, in order to make the case for the total bans. We say, well, the crooks didn't get their guns from XY or Z. Thus, those laws should be implemented. However, the guns the crooks have did enter the world legally at some point. Thus, if they never existed - no gun crime. The criminologists who study time to crime will make the point that if a gun is sold to a private person from a private person and it shows up in a crime, the average time if 5 years.

If a gun is sold NIB to a private person with no resale, the average time to crime is 10 years. If this is correct, one would argue that just eliminating guns is the solution as compared to new regs.

Just a thing to keep in mind. This is a version of the argument, why ban 30 round mags when one can reload and commit a horror with 10 rounders.

1. So don't ban 30s - gun world
2. Antigun world - ban 10s and the guns.

BTW, this is my Red Team approach to gun world arguments. I'm frustrated with the usual cliches and rants that don't have impact outside the choir and have faults. I'm obviously all for the RKBA.

[whomever]

"However, the guns the crooks have did enter the world legally at some point. Thus, if they never existed - no gun crime."

I agree that's the theory. I don't think the last sentence will prove true, though:

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/

It's a blog of 'craft built' guns from around the world, from very crude to looks-like-it-came-from-a-factory. Which isn't surprising - look at the shops of various small boutique manufacturers. A small gun maker looks like any other small machine shop; the days of needing a city block sized factory are long gone.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That is true and if you look at Australia and Brazil. homemade SMGs are a weapon of choice as they are the easiest to make. However, that still means the guns are taken from the previously lawabiding. Most folks I know aren't going to get a homemade SMG. The regular guns might be hidden as seems to happen but then they become useless in hunting, entertainment (Trump's view), competition or self-defense.

[OlongJohnson]

"However, the guns the crooks have did enter the world legally at some point. Thus, if they never existed - no gun crime."

I agree that's the theory. I don't think the last sentence will prove true, though:

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/

It's a blog of 'craft built' guns from around the world, from very crude to looks-like-it-came-from-a-factory. Which isn't surprising - look at the shops of various small boutique manufacturers. A small gun maker looks like any other small machine shop; the days of needing a city block sized factory are long gone.

This is my bottom line argument. Firearms are 800-year-old technology. Anyone who reasonable capability to cut metal with a modicum of precision can make one. There are alleged to be small villages of dirt-floor huts turning them out in third-world countries. The only way to keep them out of the hands of motivated people is to end modern civilization.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Charles Blow would argue that small shop production would be lesser in numbers than the flow from normally manufactured guns to the urban centers of gun violence.

Prohibition is the model.

My view, BTW, is that these defensive arguments are not as good as proactive arguments for the 2nd Amend.

[Bart Carter]

... If it is the case that closing loopholes, sales dodges and all kinds of nefarious dealings along with UBCs doesn't significantly decrease violent gun crime - then the solution is obvious. As in the UK, ban, confiscate, mandate turn in of almost all firearms...

FWIW, twenty years ago, England was a favorite subject of anti-gun people. They don’t like to discuss England now that the crime rates exceed the worst cities in the US. According to left leaning Politifac, the violent crime rate in England and Wales 775 per 100K versus US 383 per

[blues]

FWIW, twenty years ago, England was a favorite subject of anti-gun people. They don’t like to discuss England now that the crime rates exceed the worst cities in the US. According to left leaning Politifac, the violent crime rate in England and Wales 775 per 100K versus US 383 per

Puts the term "Bloody Brits" into perspective, doesn't it? ;)

[Tamara]

If a gun is sold NIB to a private person with no resale, the average time to crime is 10 years. If this is correct, one would argue that just eliminating guns is the solution as compared to new regs.

Just a thing to keep in mind. This is a version of the argument, why ban 30 round mags when one can reload and commit a horror with 10 rounders.

1. So don't ban 30s - gun world
2. Antigun world - ban 10s and the guns.

The correct answer to that is to laugh in their face. It's the other team's pie-in-the-sky, fairy tales and unicorns equivalent to the people on our team who think a magic court case or House Bill is going to come down the pike that repeals GCA '68 and NFA '34 in one swell foop.

Our government doesn't work that way.

1) Mr. Hypothetical Gun Grabber, you don't have the votes. Sorry. That's facts. The best you can hope for is to muscle through another incremental federal ban and brace for midterm electoral backlash.
2) Even if your fairy tale law got passed, it won't stand judicial muster in a post Heller & MacDonald world.
3) Even if the Supremes suddenly overturned their own judicial precedent, you have no idea the scale of what you're asking. We have no idea how many guns are in this country. None. Any "estimate" is probably low by a ridiculous margin. Not only do we not know how many there are, we don't know who has them, or where they are. And the home machine shops of America can make more any time they want. You think a back alley blacksmith in the Khyber can make neat stuff, Ms. Gun Grabber, imagine what he could do with a Master's in Mechanical Engineering and a CNC mill & lathe in his garage.

Both sides in this debate are stuck running Off Tackle Left on Three in the legislature while hoping to pick up an occasional twenty yards with a judicial screen pass.

[blues]

The correct answer to that is to laugh in their face. It's the other team's pie-in-the-sky, fairy tales and unicorns answer to the people on our team who think a magic court case or House Bill is going to come down the pike that repeals GCA '68 and NFA '34 in one swell foop.

Our government doesn't work that way.

1) Mr. Hypothetical Gun Grabber, you don't have the votes. Sorry. That's facts. The best you can hope for is to muscle through another incremental federal ban and brace for midterm electoral backlash.
2) Even if your fairy tale law got passed, it won't stand judicial muster in a post Heller & MacDonald world.
3) Even if the Supremes suddenly overturned their own judicial precedent, you have no idea the scale of what you're asking. We have no idea how many guns are in this country. None. Any "estimate" is probably low by a ridiculous margin. Not only do we knot know how many there are, we don't know who has them, or where they are. And the home machine shops of America can make more any time they want. You think a back alley blacksmith in the Khyber can make neat stuff, Ms. Gun Grabber, imagine what he could do with a Master's in Mechanical Engineering and a CNC mill & lathe in his garage.

Both sides in this debate are stuck running Off Tackle Left on Three in the legislature while hoping to pick up an occasional twenty yards with a judicial screen pass.

It's like the perfect country song but you didn't add mama, prison, pickup trucks or trains! :cool:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The thing I worry about is state bans proliferating and I'm waiting to see such pass SCOTUS muster with the new justices. I agree I don't see a total federal ban coming down the pike unless some atrocity causes a moral panic and a total collapse of the pro-gun legislators and executive branch. That's what our entire bump stock discussion is about.

[Tamara]

I agree I don't see a total federal ban coming down the pike unless some atrocity causes a moral panic and a total collapse of the pro-gun legislators and executive branch.

If Vegas didn't do it, what do you suppose would?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If Vegas didn't do it, what do you suppose would?

I'll pass on atrocity plans on a readable place. See a PM

[Drang]

The thing I worry about is state bans proliferating and I'm waiting to see such pass SCOTUS muster with the new justices. I agree I don't see a total federal ban coming down the pike unless some atrocity causes a moral panic and a total collapse of the pro-gun legislators and executive branch. That's what our entire bump stock discussion is about.


If Vegas didn't do it, what do you suppose would?

Just because the crap happening in Olympia and Salem is currently confined to the Pacific Northwest, doesn't mean it isn't happening...

[GyroF-16]

It's like the perfect country song but you didn't add mama, prison, pickup trucks or trains! :cool:

Or gettin’ drunk

[VT1032]

If Vegas didn't do it, what do you suppose would?A democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency? That's all that stands between us and an assault weapons ban, I guarantee you that. If the hildebeast had won, I think we would already have one.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[AKDoug]

A democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency? That's all that stands between us and an assault weapons ban, I guarantee you that. If the hildebeast had won, I think we would already have one.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Yet in 2008 to 2010 the Dems controlled all three and they couldn't even get Feinstein's attempt to reauthorize the Assault Weapon Ban out of committee.

I'm not saying I want the Dems to control anything, but it's amazing that when they had a chance they couldn't even get it off the ground.

[Tamara]

Just because the crap happening in Olympia and Salem is currently confined to the Pacific Northwest, doesn't mean it isn't happening...

I was speaking federally.

While you guys are losing ground, other states are steadily gaining it. The state level game is wildly see-sawing. We just passed more good pro-RKBA legislation here in Indiana this year.

[Stephanie B]

A democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency? That's all that stands between us and an assault weapons ban, I guarantee you that. If the hildebeast had won, I think we would already have one.
That does not comport with political reality. Clinton's winning in `16 would not have changed a single seat in either the House or the Senate.

Control of the Senate was pretty unreachable for the Democrats in `18. The mid-term flip of the House was a counter-reaction to Trump. Most parties holding the White House lose ground in the House in mid-term elections.

I don't see the path that a President Clinton would have had to get an AWB ban enacted into law.

[VT1032]

That does not comport with political reality. Clinton's winning in `16 would not have changed a single seat in either the House or the Senate.

Control of the Senate was pretty unreachable for the Democrats in `18. The mid-term flip of the House was a counter-reaction to Trump. Most parties holding the White House lose ground in the House in mid-term elections.

I don't see the path that a President Clinton would have had to get an AWB ban enacted into law.

I agree that with the current and 2016-2018 congressional setups it would be unlikely, but I think the makeup of those chambers is reflective of the conditions it took to get trump elected in the first place. If she'd had the conditions that Obama had in 2008, forget about it. With current conditions, she would have struggled in the house and now that the Senate has leaned a tad more Republican, there as well. I'll give you that.

[VT1032]

Yet in 2008 to 2010 the Dems controlled all three and they couldn't even get Feinstein's attempt to reauthorize the Assault Weapon Ban out of committee.

I'm not saying I want the Dems to control anything, but it's amazing that when they had a chance they couldn't even get it off the ground.

This isn't 2008 or 2010. The game has changed. Gun control was not a priority for Democrats at that time. At best, it was given lip service. The calculus has been changing since Sandy Hook. It is now absolutely a Democratic priority, one of their top agenda items. I'm pretty certain that if they had solid control of all three today, we would see a federal AWB.

At the same time, I really do think the momentum is at the state level, as others have suggested. Vermont, where I live, had no state-level gun laws going into 2018, literally none. We exited 2018 with magazine capacity restrictions (10rnd long gun/15rnd handgun), universal background checks, and 21 for long guns, signed into law by a Republican governor. That same Republican governor has since grown some inkling of a spine and vetoed a 24 hour waiting period bill that was passed by the legislature, but there are veto-proof majorities in both houses of the legislature so we'll see if they override him. Pandora's box has been opened here and I don't see it closing until we are another New Jersey or Massachusetts.

[BillSWPA]

This isn't 2008 or 2010. The game has changed. Gun control was not a priority for Democrats at that time. At best, it was given lip service. The calculus has been changing since Sandy Hook. It is now absolutely a Democratic priority, one of their top agenda items. I'm pretty certain that if they had solid control of all three today, we would see a federal AWB.

At the same time, I really do think the momentum is at the state level, as others have suggested. Vermont, where I live, had no state-level gun laws going into 2018, literally none. We exited 2018 with magazine capacity restrictions (10rnd long gun/15rnd handgun), universal background checks, and 21 for long guns, signed into law by a Republican governor. That same Republican governor has since grown some inkling of a spine and vetoed a 24 hour waiting period bill that was passed by the legislature, but there are veto-proof majorities in both houses of the legislature so we'll see if they override him. Pandora's box has been opened here and I don't see it closing until we are another New Jersey or Massachusetts.

Throw the recent self-inflicted wounds of the NRA into the mix, and their continued refusal to address the issue directly, and we are in a position of having to seriously regroup and reorganize before we can effectively mount a defense against such a scenario.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk