Barry gets called out on gun "facts" by Washington Post

Love how the original data is ~20 years old and such. King O has never let the truth, or real facts, get in the way of his socialist agenda. I am a bit surprised he only got three Pinocchios though.

- - - Updated - - -

I could agree that 40% of all gun transfers are done without background checks nation wide. We do have a bunch of free states out there still.

Except they are claiming it's at gun shows... NOT in free states where it's 100% legal to do a FTF sale of a firearm without going through a FFL. Even then, like in NH, there are limitations for pistol transfers.
 
40% of all gun sales happen without background checks, sure they do....

I don't doubt the statistic. Between legal face to face transfers and illegal sales, there are probably at least that many. The vast majority of my transactions are (legal) face to face for a number of reasons.

It's a red herring though because it's not the legal face to face sales that are the problem and because he's not going to do a damn thing about the illegal sales no matter what new laws get jammed up our asses. He can pass a new law that makes all face to face sales illegal tomorrow - the bad guys are going to continue to break the law to get their guns. Legal guys like me will be the only ones affected and we're not the problem.
 
The 40% number is based on a very flawed informal study that was mostly inherited or gifted firearms. I don't have them with me but the real number is a lot lower. The important point is that he is lying about it. Of course the most basic flaw about any gun control law is that criminals don't give a shit about them..

I don't doubt the statistic. Between legal face to face transfers and illegal sales, there are probably at least that many. The vast majority of my transactions are (legal) face to face for a number of reasons.

It's a red herring though because it's not the legal face to face sales that are the problem and because he's not going to do a damn thing about the illegal sales no matter what new laws get jammed up our asses. He can pass a new law that makes all face to face sales illegal tomorrow - the bad guys are going to continue to break the law to get their guns. Legal guys like me will be the only ones affected and we're not the problem.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
Only fashion reviewers and food critics in the media might not have seen this 40% myth debunked, so editors are asking fashion reviewers and food critics to write articles on gun control perpetuating the myth.

Bottom line: If one believes a conclusions is true, then one is more willing to accept the arguments supporting the conclusion are true. I was a no-nukes, save-the-whales, ban-all-handguns liberal, fresh out of the Navy when I was in my 20s - no matter that my SSBN had nukes and probably offed a few whales along the way - we didn't wear side-irons as a matter of course on a sub. Later, as a geek scientist, I couldn't avoid the facts. Hence my conversion to a conservative supporting gun rights.

A good friend from my 20s never made the transition and still drinks the Kool-Aid. All he can say is that banning assault weapons and high-capacty magazine are a good start. He has some vague faith that there are some next steps that might really make a difference, even though none are in the queue to follow. Fortunately, his passion is neutered, as are most anti-gun folks who don't support their causes with time and money.
 
I don't have them with me but the real number is a lot lower.

I'm curious about the real number. (For academic reasons, not because it makes a bit of difference.) I'd be willing to bet it's at least 50% overall, though it's impossible to measure accurately (as it should be.)

Frankly it should be 100%. The feds have no moral right to stick their noses in private transactions between law-abiding citizens.
 
sorry, but I am missing something here... if the are talking about transfers that there is no record of... how can they even pretend to guess how many are done? its like the numbers of illegals in the us... if there is no 'document' (un-documented works being the catch phrase) then there could be 1 million or 200 million...there is no way to know.

of course documenting illigals is racist but demanding gun registration is ok?
 
sorry, but I am missing something here... if the are talking about transfers that there is no record of... how can they even pretend to guess how many are done? its like the numbers of illegals in the us... if there is no 'document' (un-documented works being the catch phrase) then there could be 1 million or 200 million...there is no way to know.

of course documenting illigals is racist but demanding gun registration is ok?
Its based on a 1994 survey in which the data was collected in 1993, in which questions were asked of 251 people. So 40% of 251 people either were sure, or pretty sure, or might be sure, that they did not buy their firearms from a dealer. No lie that is what the survey asked. There was nothing in the survey about gun shows.
 
I still want to know how I can buy a gun online and not have to have it go through an FFL. That is another great claim I hear repeated over and over again.

Get a C&R? (Though technically I guess that is an FFL.)
 
Get a C&R? (Though technically I guess that is an FFL.)

That also only works for older firearms, nothing current/modern. I think it needs to be over 50 years old to qualify (don't quote me on that). While we're getting close to the time when the original M16's will qualify, it's going to be tough.
 
That also only works for older firearms, nothing current/modern. I think it needs to be over 50 years old to qualify (don't quote me on that). While we're getting close to the time when the original M16's will qualify, it's going to be tough.

That's not completely accurate. There are plenty of "modern" firearms that are C&R eligible.
 
1911s come to mind. Of course not just any 1911 will qualify, but still.

It would need to be over 50 years old. Plus, the design is over 100 years old now. So, it doesn't qualify for your point. By current/modern I was talking about under 20-25 years old. Even that is stretching things, IMO. A WWI or WWII 1911 would qualify. A Kimber would not.
 
It would need to be over 50 years old. Plus, the design is over 100 years old now. So, it doesn't qualify for your point. By current/modern I was talking about under 20-25 years old. Even that is stretching things, IMO. A WWI or WWII 1911 would qualify. A Kimber would not.

The point being that it is possible to legally buy a "modern" centerfire pistol on the internet and have it mailed to your front door. We can split hairs on what "modern" means all day. I know a few 1911 fanbois who would love to argue the point, but I'm not one of them.

(And I'd much rather have a 50 year old Colt than a brand new Kimber any day.)


EDIT: Here's the list: http://www.atf.gov/files/publicatio.../p-5300-11-firearms-curios-or-relics-list.pdf. I'm sure there's something on there that most people would call "modern."
 
Last edited:
So Barry lies......


this is news?

The news is that gun owners are being distracted by a red herring. Our response shouldn't be "Nu-uh stupid head, it's less than that." It should be "Good start, now lets get it to 100%."
 
It would need to be over 50 years old.

That's not the only qualification. Many C&R firearms get their designation from:

"Derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or from the fact of their association with some historical figure, period, or event."
 
It would need to be over 50 years old. Plus, the design is over 100 years old now. So, it doesn't qualify for your point. By current/modern I was talking about under 20-25 years old. Even that is stretching things, IMO. A WWI or WWII 1911 would qualify. A Kimber would not.
The Czech. military VZ82, was introduced in a civilian version as the CZ82 in 1983 and added to the C&R list in 2007 (24 years old at the time). "The vz. 82 was added to the US government's "Curio and Relic" list with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) in February 2007, after an individual wrote a letter to the ATF attaching a letter from a federal museum curator who stated that the vz. 82 had "museum interest" as a curio and relic.[SUP][1]"[/SUP]
 
Back
Top Bottom