Re: GUNS: Why here?

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Tue Oct 10 2000 - 13:19:53 MDT

Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 07:50:06 -0500
> >To:
> >From: Chuck Kuecker <>
> >At 09:57 PM 10/8/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >> >
> >>From:
> >>
> >
> >Not to get the whole shouting match started again - but HCI has been known
> >to present garbage numbers from time to time. Their avowed purpose is the
> >removal of all privately held weapons, not "handgun control". I take all
> >their figures with a large block of salt.
> >
> Which figures, particularly? I'd be more than happy to check them out and list the sources for you.

Their rates of 'children killed every day by guns', where they claim 13
children, which only works if you count anyone 25 or under to be a 'child'.
Childhood ends at puberty (approx 12-13), at least with most people I know of. I
am assuming that HCI is using a definition of 'child' tendered instead by the
AARP. They go on to insinuate that these are 'young children and infants'
mostly, that 'our babies are being killed on the streets', which is countered by
the fact that more infants and toddlers die in 5 gallon buckets than are killed
by guns.

> >
> >At all the shows I have been to, the "unlicensed" dealers accounted for a
> >small percentage of those present. They had small quantities of weapons, if
> >any - most had accessories and parts, but not complete guns. Those who
> >wanted to sell guns had to abide by all State of Illinois and federal laws.
> >There are enough ATF agents provocateur and snitches out there to make life
> >miserable for anyone cutting corners. Licensed dealers have too much
> >invested to want to risk it all on a few bucks from illegal sales.
> >
> Actually, there are not nearly enough ATF'ers to cover the more than 4500 gun shows held every year. The statistics given are more substantial than anecdotal evidence from the preconception-bound.

The stats given are weak and flawed, to say the least. They count more than
actual gun shows, the count every firearms competition or other firearms
sporting event open to the public. The fact is that it is unconstitutional for
the federal government to interfere in private property transactions if both
individuals reside in the same state. Federal gun laws covering gun sales are
based on the interstate commerce clause, not the militia clause, and as such
they cannot interfere in transactions within a state between private,
unincorporated individuals who are both residents of that state.

> >
> >All Illinois waiting periods are also strictly enforced. It's a quick ride
> >to jail if you try to bypass them and get caught.
> >
> And does the same hold for, say, Florida and other states? Answer: it does NOT hold for Florida - I live here, have been to the shows, and know. The same for the number of 'private citizen' gun dealers with firearm-strewn tables. BTW, the Turner Diaries are a popular seller at such shows; I purchased a copy at one, from a 'private citizen' gun dealer, just to see what the fuss was about. It was indeed revolting.

You can buy many books of various kinds with various content at gun shows. This
shows that gun owners care more about freedom of speech than alleged liberals.
According to the Supreme Court, if speech that offends is not protected, then
there is no freedom of speech. By the same logic, if guns that offend people are
not protected, is this not a violation of the right to keep and bear?

> >
> >Illegal guns sales are rare at gun shows. They are much more likely to
> >happen out of the trunk of a car in an alley somewhere in Chicago - with an
> >off-duty Chicago narc selling. Cops here have been caught selling stuff
> >right out of the evidence lockers.
> >
> Actually, it is not at all illegal for 'private citizen' gun dealers to sell their mass-purchased weapons at gun shows without benefit of background checks; that's part of the problem.

Selling to a person you know is a felon IS a crime, as a matter of fact, and the
rest of us have the right to be presumed innocent, thank you very much.

> >
> >Right off HCI's website that you posted:
> >
> >"In the deadliest school shooting in United States history, two 17-year-old
> >boys in Littleton, Colorado, procured two shotguns, an assault rifle and a
> >TEC-9 assault pistol and
> >shot 26 students, killing 13 of them before turning the guns on themselves.
> >Subsequent investigation by the ATF found that all four of the weapons had
> >passed through the
> >hands of unlicensed dealers at gun shows. The Columbine high school
> >shooting is considered to be the "turning point" in mobilizing citizen
> >action against the loopholes in
> >current gun laws."
> >
> >This is just a typical distortion. The guns were not "procured" by the two
> >17-year olds - they were bought by a "straw buyer". The TEC-9, I believe,
> >was sold directly to the boys, and the seller is now in jail for the
> >illegal sale. The fact that the guns "passed through the hands of
> >unlicensed dealers" is irrelevant. Private citizens have a right to buy and
> >sell legal items without being forced to do so through a dealer. Perhaps
> >they SHOULD be required to call the instant check system with the buyer's
> >name - but this would be worthless unless the feds actually start arresting
> >anyone who fails the background check. A true failure means the buyer is
> >prohibited from even ASKING to buy a weapon, and should see the inside of a
> >federal jail cell.
> >
> Purchase-prohibited individuals should indeed be prosecuted for illegally attempting to obtain firearms, bnut as long as so-called 'private citizen' dealers are not required to do so when they frequent gun shows to peddle their wares (as you yourself pointed out), it ain't gonna happen with the deterring frequency that it should. The guns DID pass through 'private citizen' dealers at gun shows. You're right; such background checks SHOULD be required at gun shows, whether the seller is an official or unofficial gun dealer.

Selling a privately owned gun does not make one an 'unlicensed dealer'. This
term is as much of a misnomer as 'assault weapon'.

> >
> >It still stands that if Colorado allowed concealed carry inside their
> >schools, and if the students had been trained in gun safety, that the
> >tragedy could have been prevented or stopped before the perps finally shot
> >themselves.
> >
> Yeah, let's arm ALL the teachers, and if a metal detector shows that they DON'T have weapons, they should be issued at the schoolhouse door - NOT. Let's keep the guns out of the hands of the kids, instead, through gun show background checks.

That doesn't keep them out of kids' hands, Joe and you know that. In Boston
they've found an interesting phenomenon with their rabid gun control laws: kids
are sharing guns, hiding them in abandoned buildings or burying them in boxes,
lending them out to others to use once, then re-hiding them, so that a handful
of illegally obtained guns is responsible for a huge percentage of the shootings
in Boston this year. They have also found that the incidence of kids
manufacturing 'zip guns' is on the rise again.

> >
> >Interesting aside - a local (Colorado) reporter supposedly has information
> >that someone called the local hospital on an official emergency line over
> >an hour before the shooting started - warning them to be ready for "bomb
> >and gunshot" victims. Government conspiracy, anyone?
> >
> Most likely it is an NRA disinformation urban legend, or it was the kids themselves hyping their impending spree - that is, unless you believed that government operatives showed them 52 Red Queens.

Considering the prevalence of use of Ritalin among these school shooters, it is
interesting. Also interesting is how the local police had repeatedly ignored
warnings in the days, weeks, and months prior to the incident, which included
the boys' own website that posted their 'enemies list' and what they were going
to do to them. There must be something there, otherwise the wrongful death
lawsuits against the local police would not be surviving in court...

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT