Gun dealers sell pistols 'without background check'

[Gerald]

Undercover New York City investigators bought high-powered pistols from an Arizona gun fair without undergoing a background check, officials said.

One made the purchase despite telling the seller he was "probably" barred by law from gun ownership, a report said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office said the investigation exposed "a dangerous gap in our existing federal gun laws".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12328493


Note: 31 January 2011 Last updated at 20:57 GMT

[Matador.es]

Euhm, is thins not something we all knew it was like this? Or is it nobody wants to admit it?

[breadcatcher101]

You can buy ANYTHING on the streets of NYC without a background check, so what?

I'd feel safer in AZ with their gun laws than I would in NYC with theirs.

I think we all know why they picked AZ of all states, just another political ploy by the gun control group.

[Tribesman]

You can buy ANYTHING on the streets of NYC without a background check, so what?

Are illegal gun sales on the streets of NY supposed to be legal?
So your "so what" is so irrelevant.

I think we all know why they picked AZ of all states, just another political ploy by the gun control group.
Its the fourth state they have done it in and they are so far running at a rate that 2/3 gun sellers at gun show will illegally sell weapons.

[Scurvy]

What is a "high-powered pistol"?

[Tribesman]

What is a "high-powered pistol"?
What is a "high powered engine"?

[Platapus]

Back when I used to haunt gun shows, many of the guns I bought had no records at all. One time I bought a handgun and resold it at the same gun show for a profit and there were no records kept.

Closing some of the loopholes in selling/buying handguns at gun shows is a good thing in my opinion.

[Platapus]

What is a "high-powered pistol"?

That would depend on the person.

To some anything bigger than a .22 might be considered high powered. To others anything above a .45 or the "magnums" would be considered high powered. I don't think there is any universal definition.

[Tribesman]

To some anything bigger than a .22 might be considered high powered.
Would that be a high powered .22 or a low powered .22?
Like with engines the term relates to energy.

[Feuer Frei!]

That would depend on the person.

To some anything bigger than a .22 might be considered high powered. To others anything above a .45 or the "magnums" would be considered high powered. I don't think there is any universal definition.
That's pretty much what i would have said,
there is no one definitive answer as to what constitutes high/low-powered weapon.
But, all of the following can and certainly do become a factor in attempting to determine what is what:

High velocity ("hydrostatic shock")
Shock
Bullet diameter
Bullet weight
Kinetic energy
Momentum
Relative Stopping Power, OGW, and killing power formulas
Bullet terminal performance
Bullet placement
Other (dwell time and other arcane theories).

[August]

What is a "high-powered pistol"?

A media term for when "pistol" alone doesn't sound scary enough...

[Tribesman]

A media term for when "pistol" alone doesn't sound scary enough...
Like the NRA doing articles about the reputation of low power of some .38s and some new .38s being high power?
Oh, not that media the other media:O:

[TLAM Strike]

Closing some of the loopholes in selling/buying handguns at gun shows is a good thing in my opinion.

I strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment but a gun license and background check should be required for anything concealable no matter where it is purchased. That is what the criminals want; that is what must be regulated.

[gimpy117]

What is a "high-powered pistol"?

It's not like it matters. A gun is a gun...it's still a dangerous weapon even if it's a .22. the Mob used .22 cal all the time for assassinations.

[Tribesman]

It's not like it matters. A gun is a gun...it's still a dangerous weapon even if it's a .22.
No, a gun can be a dangerous weapon. Big difference.

[ETR3(SS)]

Thought I'd share this, looks like yahoo goes a little more in depth with the story. Worth a read I think. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bloomberg_gun_control

[gimpy117]

No, a gun can be a dangerous weapon. Big difference.

can be? It is. #1 rule of shooting is to always treat it as loaded..why is that? Because guns are dangerous. If they weren't why would we always aim it down range or away from others?

Lots of people get shot on accident every year because they don't respect the hazards of carrying a gun around.

[Feuer Frei!]

Sorry to butt in here but....
It's not a gun that is dangerous, it's the person that holds it that can make the gun dangerous.
(If not handled responsibly).

[gimpy117]

Sorry to butt in here but....
It's not a gun that is dangerous, it's the person that holds it that can make the gun dangerous.
(If not handled responsibly).

I think you are missing the point. It's quite the opposite. A gun is inherently dangerous and can be made safer by proper handling of it. Mishandling such a weapon only allows its full potential for in jury to show itself. My Rifle or shotgun's bullets are no less deadly because I am carrying it rather than a child. Should I make a mistake the results are the same as if an untrained kid was shooting.

To treat a gun with a caviler attitude like that is not something I ever would want to do. Remind me not to shoot with you, because where I come from I was taught that the first rule is to always assume it's dangerous (aka it's loaded). To assume its safe because "you know what you are doing" is asking for trouble.

[Feuer Frei!]

A gun is inherently dangerous And what constitutes it being dangerous? The times where it is loaded? Or not loaded? How did it come to be loaded? And if it is loaded, how did it come to be pointed in the wrong direction? Or at someone? And soforth and soforth... and can be made safer by proper handling of it. That is my point, we seem to agree here Mishandling such a weapon only allows its full potential for in jury to show itself.Exactly, Mishandling, we again agree
To treat a gun with a caviler attitude like that is not something I ever would want to do.Cavalier attitude? I don't quiet understand? To assume its safe because "you know what you are doing" is asking for trouble.Ah but if someone knows what they are doing and being responsible in the first place, they wouldn't be assuming and would actually know if the fire arm was loaded or not, or indeed not be a danger in the person's hand(s) in the first place.
BTW, i have handled fire arms on many occasions, both in civilian life and also in the Armed Forces, always with the utmost care and safety and responsible attitude that i have learnt in the Army and from my father, who is extremely experienced in handling many types of firearms, both on firing ranges, and also out in the 'fields', hunting game.
When handling firearms i never assume, i know!
I think we will agree to disagree here.

[gimpy117]

but why not be double safe and just act like it's dangerous anyways?

[Sailor Steve]

Its the fourth state they have done it in and they are so far running at a rate that 2/3 gun sellers at gun show will illegally sell weapons.
And the point he made about those states being safer than NY is still true.

[Feuer Frei!]

but why not be double safe and just act like it's dangerous anyways?
Well i wouldn't have any problems teaching my children that, that firearms are not toys, nor are they harmless...
however i would also teach them that a firearm is only as safe or as unsafe as the person holding that firearm.
:salute:

[Tribesman]

And the point he made about those states being safer than NY is still true.
Would it?
Take some major cities in those 4 States and compare their crime rates for murder and violent crime with NYC.
He may have a perception of safety but is it true? If it were true then surely those cities would be lower than NYC.

But anyway as it happens Tuscon recently had a good illustration of safety through allowing gun ownership didn't it and it didn't show very good for those that believe the illusion.


can be? It is. #1 rule of shooting is to always treat it as loaded..why is that? Because guns are dangerous.
Because guns can be dangerous.

[gimpy117]

Because guns can be dangerous.

the fact that they can be dangerous makes them dangerous.

[Tribesman]

the fact that they can be dangerous makes them dangerous.
Stones can be dangerous, would you say a stone is dangerous?

[August]

the fact that they can be dangerous makes them dangerous.

A hammer can also be dangerous as can a common fork. But none of them are dangerous by themselves. It takes a person to misuse them.

[tater]

A media term for when "pistol" alone doesn't sound scary enough...

This.

[tater]

Would it?
Take some major cities in those 4 States and compare their crime rates for murder and violent crime with NYC.
He may have a perception of safety but is it true? If it were true then surely those cities would be lower than NYC.

But anyway as it happens Tuscon recently had a good illustration of safety through allowing gun ownership didn't it and it didn't show very good for those that believe the illusion.

The cities in AZ are now unsafe mostly due to Mexicans. I do in fact mean Mexican nationals, not people who happen to have Spanish surnames.

Gun ownership in the US is an explicit Right (and the people in the 2d Amendment, means the population at large as it does in every other use of "the people" in the Constitution).

Crime rates in the US are complicated, but the bottom line is that areas with large %s of certain minorities have vastly higher crime rates. "Blacks," sadly, have a gun homicide rate nearly 10 times higher than "whites." If the black population is higher % wise in any given area, the crime stats are going to be grossly skewed upwards. They are not in fact mitigated by gun laws, either, as the criminals buy guns regardless of legality. The same is true for areas with many mexican nationals these days given the drug cartel problems (last year there were tens of thousands of fatalities related to this, and the border towns like Ciudad Juarez are stunningly dangerous places—and as long as the border is not locked down will continue to be since the violence is fighting over the right to SMUGGLE to the US).

The Tucson shooter was a nut case, but he could have easily have killed 6 people by ramming his CAR into the crowd had he decided to.

Anyone here who is a US citizen is welcome to an opinion that the 2d should be repealed (good luck with that), but that is the only legitimate path to gun control in the US since gun ownership is specifically protected. Real the 2d, or lobby to do so, but stop with unconstitutional "gun control" ( "shall not be infringed" is a pretty low bar for any sort of regulation).

[Sailor Steve]

I will agree with the other side on this story. Supporters of gun rights consistently say "Rather than write new laws we should be enforcing the ones we already have", and the Yahoo article mentions a comment to the effect that Arizona will be ending all gun sales without background checks. It looks to me at this point that the story really is that existing laws weren't being enforced, and as a result of this they will be, at least for awhile.

[krashkart]

No, a gun can be a dangerous weapon. Big difference.

:yep: Depends on how the firearm is employed by the person using it.

[mookiemookie]

Crime rates in the US are complicated, but the bottom line is that areas with large %s of certain minorities have vastly higher crime rates. "Blacks," sadly, have a gun homicide rate nearly 10 times higher than "whites." If the black population is higher % wise in any given area, the crime stats are going to be grossly skewed upwards.

I wonder if the driving factor behind crime rate is poverty or race. I would submit that it's pretty bigoted to ascribe higher crime rates solely to the presence of (insert whatever minority you're targeting) in a location.

[Takeda Shingen]

I think much of the point about firearms is the inherent intent. A rock, a pencil or a vehicle can be used as weapons, but that potential is not realized until the intent is to use them as such is followed upon. A firearm, by contrast, is manufactured explicitly to be used as a weapon. The firearm's first and only purpose is to kill something; there is no alternative use. There is always a danger when using such an object, trained or not. It is no different than a martial arts master using a weapon that he has trained on. Even the most skilled users suffer accidents.

[Buddahaid]

It's a weapon I sure hope it's dangerous. Stop or I'll shoot you with my feather gun doesn't really work well.

[tater]

I wonder if the driving factor behind crime rate is poverty or race. I would submit that it's pretty bigoted to ascribe higher crime rates solely to the presence of (insert whatever minority you're targeting) in a location.

It's fact, though. If a minority has a 10X homicide rate, their presence in an area will obviously increase the average homicide rate for whatever city. That's why it's the "cause" of bad crime rates. Simple math. The why for the given minority is another question entirely.

That's all I'm saying, I don't recall making an argument as to the CAUSE, though since the rate for certain demographics is higher regardless of income level, it is likely a cultural issue (only a moron would suggest that somehow gun violence was heritable, lol).

A possible cultural problem is lack of male parents. Stats show that kids without a dad are vastly more likely to be convicted of a felony in their lifetime (by some unreal-sounding multiple, not just a minor %). More than 80% of black kids are born out of wedlock.

It's clear that it is not simply poverty (my dad was bron during the Depression, and he didn't engage in drive-by shootings, and guns were far easier to get back then than now).

[tater]

I'd add that since gun control is unconstitutional in the US in the first place, why not suggest other unconstitutional gun laws if the goal is not constitutionality, but the pragmatism of lowering homicide rates?

You could for example, ban blacks, or anyone with a spanish surname from owning firearms since their rate of using them violently is so very much higher. This would certainly have the desired, pragmatic effect, right? Oh, wait, that's clearly not "equal protection." OTOH, if you are willing to throw the 2d Amendment into the trash, why not throw the 14th in there as well?

(for the reading impaired, I'm not actually suggesting that we throw ANY Amendments in the trash, I want all of them in place assuming they are not repealed).

[Armistead]

I am all for gun rights, own several.

I know gun dealers, people that just travel to shows with loads of guns without a gun shop are licensed same as in house gun shops. As far as I'm concerned to sell at a gun show, you have to have a gun shop, a legal building open to the public. We have so many dealers selling out of the back of cars that really aren't professionals, where as shop sellers have places open to the public, there when you need them, shooting ranges, safety training, repair. These are serious people that are professional and qualified, not just trying to make a buck.

I see no problem with waiting periods for certain firearms, required training, ect. I have a conceal permit here in NC, although I rarely carry one, but I believe we need more laws and training for concealed carry. When I got mine all I had to do was get a friend in law enforcement sign for me and pass the legal requirements.

The only thing that would happen if you banned guns, it would all go underground. Like booze of the past and drugs now, if you wanted one it would be easy to get, no record, no training, no waiting....it would be a huge error. I can walk on any constuction site and buy a dozen guns for hardly anything...

[Bubblehead1980]

First thing, NYC cops had no business running a sting in AZ anyway.Bloomberg is a liberal piece of garbage who thinks having an I behind his name helps him.Yea lets just turn the whole country into NY where the criminals have guns and most people do not so can not protect themselves.

There was a case in my hometown this past weekend where a 72 year old man answered the door and some punk 17 year old hit him in the head with a baseball bat.The scumbag and two other idiots then tried to enter the man's home, he pulled out a gun and shot two of them, the other ran.All have been arrested.

What if that man had not been in Florida but in some state with draconian gun laws? Good chance he would be dead.Oh yea, his older sister was also in the home.Guns have a role, thus why they are part of our constitution.

[Armistead]

Guns outlawed.
Like booze of the past or drugs today, sales go underground, no records, no safety training.
End result, everyone that still wants a gun will have one, just no records of it.

[Tribesman]

@Tater

The Tucson shooter was a nut case, but he could have easily have killed 6 people by ramming his CAR into the crowd had he decided to.
Who was talking about the shooter?
Its about the other people at the scene who were armed, they didn't accomplish anything much did they.
One citizen in particular did show real responsibility though, he hesitated when he saw a man with a gun as he was unsure if he was the nutter or not, he also decided that he had better not draw his own weapon in case someone else with a gun thought he was a nutter.
Not very effective in the realms of protection though is it.

Crime rates in the US are complicated
Are they that complicated as to show the places he thinks are safer are a hell of a lot worse than the area he thinks is dodgy?
Are they that complicated so as to produce results which are counter to his perceptions on such a consistant and marked scale right across the board?


Bubbles
There was a case in my hometown this past weekend where a 72 year old man answered the door and some punk 17 year old hit him in the head with a baseball bat
Idiot punks, after all when the victims may have a gun you better be damn sure to kill them before you try and enter their property:hmmm:

@Armistead
Guns outlawed.

Has anyone here really mentioned such a silly idea as an outright ban on firearms?

[yubba]

I am all for gun rights, own several.

I know gun dealers, people that just travel to shows with loads of guns without a gun shop are licensed same as in house gun shops. As far as I'm concerned to sell at a gun show, you have to have a gun shop, a legal building open to the public. We have so many dealers selling out of the back of cars that really aren't professionals, where as shop sellers have places open to the public, there when you need them, shooting ranges, safety training, repair. These are serious people that are professional and qualified, not just trying to make a buck.

I see no problem with waiting periods for certain firearms, required training, ect. I have a conceal permit here in NC, although I rarely carry one, but I believe we need more laws and training for concealed carry. When I got mine all I had to do was get a friend in law enforcement sign for me and pass the legal requirements.

The only thing that would happen if you banned guns, it would all go underground. Like booze of the past and drugs now, if you wanted one it would be easy to get, no record, no training, no waiting....it would be a huge error. I can walk on any constuction site and buy a dozen guns for hardly anything...
AMEN Brother. Fear a government that fears your gun rights.

[Tribesman]

Fear a government that fears your gun rights.
the government has alien technology from the reptilians which renders all guns useless so the government doesn't fear guns it just pretends to.

[Rockstar]

Here's my idea

Instead of placing additional burdens on the gun dealers by reporting on citizens, creating and filing even more paperwork at the time of a purchase. How about using the technology available to us today. I bet a system already in place such as the one used in the issuance of Transportation Workers Identification Cards (TWIC) would be able to work for this too. Though separate from and under a different name of course.

Government can make it known it doesn't care how many firearms you want to purchase. Just that if anyone would want to exercise their 2nd amendment right. They must simply fill out an application with the ATF. This application would have the same information any gun dealer is already required to collect for ATF at the time of a purchase.

But the potential buyer now just has to surrender this information only once and to ATF directly. The application once submitted now can be reviewed and the time taken to check the applicant history for priors and any other kind of shady past.

Once approved a photo ID card is issued. Now a buyer must present this card to the gun dealer at the time of purchase. The dealer too needs to be able to scan this information directly to ATF at the time of purchase.

This card would not give the buyer permission to purchase anytime. The buyer is still subject to cooling off periods. Nor would it give the buyer the ability to purchase an unlimited number of firearms, not unless he wants to pay for it, of course.

Additional information on the application could include the number of firearms the buyer intends to purchase, sell or transfer in a given period of time. This could prove useful for several reasons. 1. it would determine application processing fees, if someone wants to be able to buy 100 firearms he will have to pay a heck of a lot more than some one who want to just buy one; 2. that person who estimates 100 rifles in a given period of time on his application would obviously raise eyebrows to ATF before a card is even issued; 3. A buyer could not purchase more firearms than what his estimate said on the application. This would be found out at the dealer when he scans the card at his place of business

Uncle would be collecting the same information it always has but now it's done electronically and it can give authorities a certain ability to be pro active rather than just reactive.

[mookiemookie]

It's fact, though. If a minority has a 10X homicide rate, their presence in an area will obviously increase the average homicide rate for whatever city. That's why it's the "cause" of bad crime rates. Simple math. The why for the given minority is another question entirely.

That's all I'm saying, I don't recall making an argument as to the CAUSE, though since the rate for certain demographics is higher regardless of income level, it is likely a cultural issue (only a moron would suggest that somehow gun violence was heritable, lol).

A possible cultural problem is lack of male parents. Stats show that kids without a dad are vastly more likely to be convicted of a felony in their lifetime (by some unreal-sounding multiple, not just a minor %). More than 80% of black kids are born out of wedlock.

It's clear that it is not simply poverty (my dad was bron during the Depression, and he didn't engage in drive-by shootings, and guns were far easier to get back then than now).

Ehhh....Whatever point it is you think you're trying to make...you'd probably be best just letting it drop. Cut your losses before you go really sour with things and all that.

[yubba]

the government has alien technology from the reptilians which renders all guns useless so the government doesn't fear guns it just pretends to.
That's alright I'm pretty good with a bow, working on getting a crossbow, last I knew a broad head would cut through kevlar, that should get through the hide of our reptilian overlords.:woot:Gun control is being able to hit the target.

[Sailor Steve]

First thing, NYC cops had no business running a sting in AZ anyway.Bloomberg is a liberal piece of garbage who thinks having an I behind his name helps him.
Your whole post has a good point, at least from my point of view. But when are you going to learn that the type of antagonism in your opening statement is not welcome here?

[ETR3(SS)]

First thing, NYC cops had no business running a sting in AZ anyway.Where in the articles did it say that NYPD was involved in this operation?

[August]

Where in the articles did it say that NYPD was involved in this operation?

Well they said it was NYC "Investigators" and they're apparently working for the NYC mayors office so draw your own conclusions...

[Tribesman]

Well they said it was NYC "Investigators" and they're apparently working for the NYC mayors office so draw your own conclusions...
Or look for yourself and find that it was a private firm called Kroll who does private investigations and they did the work for the NYC mayors office so you can find your own conclusion about people jumping to conclusions.

[August]

Or look for yourself and find that it was a private firm called Kroll who does private investigations and they did the work for the NYC mayors office so you can find your own conclusion about people jumping to conclusions.


Go troll someone else Troll.

[Tribesman]

Do you have a rather different definition of troll August as you seem to be the one being a troll yet again.

[August]

Do you have a rather different definition of troll August as you seem to be the one being a troll yet again.

Thumbs up everyone who hasn't been brigged for trolling. :up:

Thanks for playing. Back to the ignore list you go.

[Tribesman]

Back to the ignore list you go.
:har::har::har::har::har::har:
I am heartbroken.