Previous Post
Next Post

Over on the post Mayor Bloomberg = Mayor Blameberg? MikeB302000 and I are having it out. “How many times do I have to lay out the facts concerning background checks and preventing straw purchasing with registration for you to get it,” MikeB asked. “I say you’re willfully wrong. And with all your intellectual vigor, whatever the hell that is, you haven’t proven a thing to me.” To which I replied “In answer to your question ‘how many times do I have to lay out the facts . . . ?’ Try once. Give me one fact regarding background checks or straw purchasing that offers convincing evidence that the former lowers firearms-related crime or that the latter (registration) reduces straw purchasing. Fact. Not opinion. Or conjecture. Fact. One. For each preferably, but I’ll take what I can get. In fact, it doesn’t have to be convincing. Just factual.” And then something amazing happened . . .

It is a fact that if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do. That’s a fact based on human nature and the absolutely safe assumption that some of the straw purchasers are intelligent enough to put 2 and 2 together.

Do you deny that? If we’re arguing in good faith, you should not demand facts or proof for that which is self-evident.

Wow. Just wow. Skipping ahead . . .

I didn’t say if something is self-evident to me it’s beyond scrutiny. I said you’re playing hard to get when you say what’s self-evident to me is not to you. Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with “facts,” it requires common sense and honesty. I don’t think you’re using those, in the name of arguing, all’s fair on love and war, and all that.

Let’s try this for a fact.

Our homicide rate compared to the UK is sky high. Our gun rate per capita compared to the UK is sky high. The fact is, if we had the gun control laws of the UK, our homicide rate would be lower.

Now, before you give me that old speech about correlation and causation, just try for a moment to be objective and tell me if that qualifies as a “fact.”

Anyone care to jump in here? And if you do, please remember that well-reasoned, fact-based logic is not your friend. Well, it’s your friend. Not Mike’s. Nor any other gun control advocate, as far as I can tell.

Previous Post
Next Post

247 COMMENTS

        • Number 11, Brazil, legislated away gun rights almost completely away in 2003, and continues to experience murders, including firearms murders, all the time. If you can make a really strong case, you might be able to get a gun to have in your home, but forget about carrying. Somehow, restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms hasn’t been the win for public safety it was expected to be.

  1. Um, yes… it is a _fact_ that correlation and causality are two different things.

    Mike wrote “It is a fact that if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”

    I read that as: “if X purchasers knew they’d have to produce the X and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop purchasing X.” It’s hard to disagree with Mike on that one, whether X is guns or books or pants.

    • In the science of Logic there are a few rules that must be followed in order to prove a conclusion.

      1. The theorem must be valid. “If Premise A, then Conclusion B.” If there is EVER any situation that can result in premise A being true without conclusion B also being true, then the theorem is invalid.
      “If you have $100, then you have at least $20” is a correct theorem.
      “If you have $20, then you have $100” is an invalid theorem, because if the total amount of money you have is between $20.00 and $99.99 then the theorem is incorrect.
      2. Premise A must be proven to be true. Let’s assume you do have $100.
      3. Then we can conlude that you also have at least $20.

      Now that we know how to properly analyze MikeB’s argument, let’s take a good look at it.

      Mike wrote “It is a fact that if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”
      1. This theorem is invalid, because we know that there are some straw purchasers who will not be stopped by any law of any kind. However, I don’t think that is EXACTLY what MikeB meant to say. So I will change his theorem to more accurately state what he was trying to say. “If straw purchasers knew THAT THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail, A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THEM would stop doing what they do.” Now I think almost all of us would accept this theorem as “self-evident”. For the sake of argument, we’ll assume acceptance of self-evidence, for the moment.
      2. The premise clause of the theorem is not true. I don’t see how we could change the current laws to make it true either, without establishing some kind of government control that would severely violate the civil rights of all our citizens, and I just don’t think the people of America will ever allow that kind of government to happen.
      3. Therefore we must accept that the resultant conlusion clause of the theorem is not supported.

      MikeB’s argument falls apart (even with our new accurate theorem), because the premise clause is not true and probably never will be true.

      • “… The premise clause of the theorem is not true… Therefore we must accept that the resultant conlusion clause of the theorem is not supported…”
        ——————–
        Not necessarily. False premises don’t preclude true conclusions. Consider:
        A. Insects have eight legs (False)
        B. Bumblebees have eight legs (False)
        C. Therefore, bumblebees are insects (True)

        Just sayin’, y’know?

  2. but.. but… it’s the children, we need to save the children! Seriously, when the folks making the laws can’t tell the difference between an AR-15 and a full auto M-16, and also decree that a bayonet lug makes a rifle “bad”, then I expect little in the way of factual arguement when trying to talk to them. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “Man’s mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its orignal dimension.” Once the determination was made by someone that all guns are “bad”, owning guns is “bad”, carrying guns is “bad”, enjoying shooting guns is “bad”, you can’t get new ideas into a locked brain no matter how many facts you have at your disposal. It comes down to control. I have never met a gun owner that insisted some one else MUST own guns if they didn’t want to. We don’t impose our wants on others. But gun control people definitely want to impose their will on us. They don’t like guns and we therefore must be wrong, because we enjoy them. I would never make a vegetarian eat a cheese burger, but PETA people want to deny me my cheese burger because of their beliefs and want to impose that belief system on me. It’s all about controlling people and imposing their will on folks that don’t agree.

    • Spot on, in regards to it being all about control. I’d venture to even say that when it comes to many antis, guns aren’t even what they hate; subconsciously, they hate their inability to control those with the means to defend themselves.

    • I couldn’t agree more. Most people serving in government, not all but I am guessing a vast majority couldn’t tell you if a gun is legal or not yet they signed the gun control bill into law!

  3. Okay. I’ll take a crack at this.

    Let’s reference ye olde Merriam Webster:

    fact noun \ˈfakt\
    5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

    Okay. Let’s define reality.

    re·al·i·ty noun \rē-ˈa-lə-tē\
    1: the quality or state of being real
    2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs (2) : the totality of real things and events b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

    Now let us define conjecture:

    con·jec·ture noun \kən-ˈjek-chər\
    2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

    I will leave mikeb to decide how to interpret the English above. I will also leave it to mikeb to understand that “common sense” is a highly-subjective concept that is open to interpretation and is inevitably going to have a different definition from person to person. Which is why pro-gun folks don’t employ it in their lexicon. They prefer solid, well-defined language, whereas anti-gun folks like open-ended interpretations of the English language so that they may be free to subjectively define what is best for the rest of us.

  4. Well, that Britian’s homicide rate is lower than the US’ is potentially a fact. Metadata supporting that this is (a) true (b) accurate and (c) measured the same way in both countries, would promote it to an actual fact.

    That the difference is due to gun control is not a fact. It is a theory. I could suggest several studies and experiement that could be performed to validate or discredite the theory, but folks smarter than I have already done so.

    Hmmm, also note:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

    • Historical data shows that the US has always had a higher murder rate than the UK, even before the UK became an Orwellian nightmare. It’s a social issue, not an inanimate object issue.

        • Then explain this: as gun ownership has increased, concealed carry has increased, and the scary looking weapons ban has gone away, why have violent crimes involving guns gone down in the US?

          I mean, your “brilliant” logic tells us that these evil inanimate objects cause crime, so how can in increase in these scary objects result in a DECREASE in said crime?

          • First of all the decrease is minimal. With proper gun contol laws it would be significant.

            Secondly, your correlation that more guns has meant less gun crime is no more valid than some of my correlations that you reject out of hand.

            • Have you read John Lott’s book? If EVER there was a statistically-based conclusion that is it. Staggeringly thorough. OK, boringly. But there it is. Facts lined-up in a row. Available at Amazon. You REALLY ought to try to read it.

              • Kinda like that claim that gun ownership is at its lowest point, based on the GSS survey of only 2,770 people in the US. When in fact the total numbers today are more than ever in US history.

                Yet the anti’s claim the same methodology and relative sample sizes (much larger) for Kleck & Gertz’s study on defensive gun uses is not valid.

                Such hyspocrisy by Mikeb dont you agree!

            • I never claimed that more guns = less crime (though there are researchers and statisticians who HAVE published research papers and books on that very relationship). I simply pointed out that your claim that the presence of guns causes crime is false by showing you that the number of guns has increased dramatically and yet over the last 20 years, violent crime has decreased significantly.

  5. I would say that we are comparing apples and oranges. Britain has had gun registration since the 1920’s, and an outright ban since 1997. Neither law substantially reduced the murder rate, although the rate of accidental killings was directly changed.

    In the U.S., something like 40% of households own guns. If we started taking them away, it would take decades. During those decades, a substantial portion of the population would be at the mercy of armed criminals. Britain simply never had this transition problem.

    Even if you prove that a disarmed society is better, you still need to come up with a plan to do so.

    Here is the problem I have with gun laws in the U.S.: Let’s say you are a member of a terrorist organization, and you are personally on the “no fly” list because of your many contacts with terrorists. You can still walk into a gun store, plop down your money, wait three days, and buy as many guns as you want.

    Federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms, or explosives for that matter. Can we at least agree that maybe we should at least have a registration process for terrorists who want to buy guns?

    • Definitely not. The Terrorist Watch list is a program without judicial review. Or a quick and efficient way to challenge the initial determination. There are thousands of people who’ve been put on the list erroneously. Even the New York Times (gasp!) have run stories on how people have been “ensnared” by the list.

      And we know that the feds have tried (and are continuing to try) to label groups antagonistic to Uncle Sam as terrorists. Clock this article in USA Today, published the day after the Hutarees walked. (Mentions them at the end.)

      According to U.S. law, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can PROVE someone’s a terrorist in a court of law, then fine, charge them and take away their constitutional rights. If you SUSPECT someone’s a terrorist, work within legal bounds to surveil that person. Otherwise, leave them the f alone.

      Oh and do you think a terrorist could get a gun without buying one from a gun dealer?

      • Last I heard, American citizens who advocate for their freedoms under the Bill of Rights are being considered potential terrorist suspects in some modern era political circles and that includes parts of the US Federal Government.

      • No Fly List? Hell, I discovered that I am on that list due to the commonality of my name. Am I a terrorist? Nope, just an average guy with a suitcase filled with shorts heading off on vacation. Yet I was treated like a criminal because some fist fvcker in a bureaucracy needed to come up with some kind of justification for his/her paycheck.

        • My vacation-land next-door neighbor in Spain has a wife who loves Manhattan. But his name is common, and the same as a very-much-wanted Mexican gangster. Every year for three years they pull him aside and interrogate him for two to three hours at Kennedy Airport. You would think they settled things the first time, no?

    • The problem is in how and who decides that someone is a terrorist.

      Is a terrorist someone who disagrees with the government? I think most of the TTAG readers disagree with their government as regards the gun-control laws.

      So is a terrorist someone who disagrees with the government and has taken steps to prepare for violence on a large scale? Does owning more than a certain number of guns (3, 10, 20?) or more than a certain amount of ammo (200 rounds, 500 rounds?) sound like preparation for large scale violence?

      Or how about membership in an organization that advocates violent opposition of the government? Some people have put that kind of post on the TTAG website. So it is obvious that everyone who visits the TTAG web site is a domestic terrorist, right? WRONG.

      Are you starting to see the problem with designating someone as a terrorist? Even if they can find a way to accurately designate real terrorists, what is to stop a “terrorist” from buying his weapons illegally? Most of the weapons that are used illegally (during the commission of a crime) were purchased/obtained illegally by that criminal. If criminals can do it, terrorists can do it too.

  6. I don’t usually use internet acronyms, but…ROFL. That made my day.

    I don’t bother with mikeb anymore; it’s not worth the time or effort to debate a mind incapable of rational, logical, factual discourse. But like anyone who wants so dearly for us to be like our socialist police state friends across the pond, I’d say look away from gun violence for a second and look at violent crime and theft as a whole in the UK. The findings may surprise you.

    It’s almost as if…gasp…violence exists independent of firearms, or even MORESO in places where the strong rule with no equalizer. But nah…after all, there was no violence or crime before the invention of the gun, right?

    • I’ve found that liberals in general run on emotion without fact. Republicans don’t want healthcare to pass because they want old people to die. That’s a fact. I mean honestly, who wants their kids to know their grandparents? We all fought with our parents at one point, why would we want to subject our children to those people. And they smell bad.
      >
      sarcasm engaged hardcore.

      • Go Dawgs!!!

        Kelly you make me proud that UGA is still turning out some people able to think for themselves intelligently and rationally.

  7. Fact) A straw purchaser and the person consummating the purchase is already violating the law and as such care nothing about the law or how it is enforced.
    Fact) Providing a proof of legal purchase later to prevent going to jail means nothing to a law breaker, just as other crimes has the same type of penalty.
    Our justice system has given the law breakers the idea that the punishment is easier than the benefits of the crime.

    • Now who’s making shit up and calling it fact? Straw purchasers by definition have clean records. They know they’re breaking the law, but it’s one they can easily get away with, thereby maintaining the clean record. They’re a different breed than the ones they buy for. That’s why they’d be deterred by proper gun control laws.

  8. “Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with “facts,” it requires common sense and honesty.”
    Or, as a logical person would read that…
    “Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with facts, it requires speculation and assumption.”
    Those who wish to live with heads firmly buried deep in the sand are often impervious to factual statements. Finite statistics that point out the traumatic results and tragedies are flaunted to illustrate an emotional response to a logical question. It does not take a lot of reason to inspire heart felt reaction when a picture of a smiling child is plastered on a television screen under a heading that reads “Yet another senseless victim of handgun violence…”
    What you have there is a tragic plea for emotional response while pinning the responsibility for the death on an inanimate object. Forget the root cause of the death (malice, neglect, irresponsibility, etc…), just focus on the sad image of a life lost.
    As I have lamented before, it will never cease to amaze me that the same people that propose greater restrictions in the interest of public safety are often the very same people who could not care less if I live or die. I have been lectured about the unsafe practices in my life (Firearms, motorcycle riding, cliff diving…) by a smashed drunk registered nurse with her car keys in one hand and a drink in the other. Did that make her a credible source of criticism? Nope.
    As for our esteemed mr. bonomo, well, let his own admissions speak for him. He is almost as credible as that drunk woman in the bar parking lot. Conjecture and posture unsupported by facts or actions.
    As for “inventive math…”
    9 out of 10 criminals prefer an unarmed victim.
    See? I can make up “statistics” that are not supported by any muddling “facts” and use these false “stats” to bolster the spin on my argument. I am not sullied by any kind of support or factual research. Why should I when I can make a “common sense” statement that draws a conclusion from speculation?
    Have you ever really had an argument with a fire hydrant? Same effect.
    This one is going to turn into a Troll Roast Flame Festival. Where is my popcorn?

  9. “Let’s try this for a fact.

    Our homicide rate compared to the UK is sky high. Our gun rate per capita compared to the UK is sky high. The fact is, if we had the gun control laws of the UK, our homicide rate would be lower.

    Now, before you give me that old speech about correlation and causation, just try for a moment to be objective and tell me if that qualifies as a “fact.””

    That is not a fact. Even if the UK had identical gun laws to the US the UK would still have less homocide rates per capita based on demographic conditions alone.

    I’ll betcha a dollar that violent crime in the UK would decrease if their laws were identical to the laws where I live.

    It is a fact that a if a criminal wants a gun badly enough, the criminal will find one.

    In addition, any laws that require a straw purchaser to produce paperwork could be argued as unconstitutional because it would violate the 5th amendment and a persons right to protect against self incrimination.

  10. Over on the post Mayor Bloomberg = Mayor Blameberg? MikeB302000 and I are having it out.

    You guys made the formatting explode in the comments section.

  11. Sure, our homicide rate might lower if we had draconian gun laws, but it wouldn’t lower to anywhere near theirs. Look at the size of the U.S. then look at the size of Great Britain. Common sense, a true rarity in these times, dictates that if there are a couple hundred million more people in one country vs. another, crime rates across the board from petty larceny to 1st degree murder are going to be higher in the country of a vastly higher population.
    I almost feel sorry for any citizen of Great Britain who desires to have the freedoms we do, and not just lax gun ownership. I’ve seen videos of people being questioned by multiple police officers on the streets of London for publicly speaking about ethics, the economy, politics etc. It’s no surprise that there are surveillance cameras everywhere too. It’s frightening, and the sad thing is there are plenty of people who prefer that lifestyle because they’ve been taught from birth that a heavily policed state is a happy state.

  12. The United States has always had a higher murder rate, everything else equal, than Europe and Canada every since records have been collected. It’s the nature of our society.

    Homicide rates among whites and Asians in the US are comparable to the rest of the develop world. Homicide rates among Hispanics are only slightly higher than the rest of the developed world. Homicides in the black community are what make our murder rate deviate from the rest of our peers. The reason is simple. Many African-Americans live in the ungoverned areas that are called our inner cities. 70% of the children are born out of wedlock and grow up fatherless. Ungoverned areas where there is no viable family are prone to the kind violence that pushes up the murder rate. We don’t have a gun problem we have gang problem. While there are gangs in the Hispanic community they operate like organized crime did in Irish, Italian and Jewish communities in the early part of the 20th Century. They are more careful about who gets shot. It’s about business.

    Now to MikeB.

    From what I have garnered from in the past couple of weeks, Mike B is a sell admitted felon (convicted or not), he is Italian living in the old country which sounds to me like he is a wiseguy living on the lam. I give him the benefit of the doubt and choose to believe that he has reformed himself. His anti-gun zeal is that of reformed sinner (criminal) so I am willing to cut him a little slack. What I am not willing to tolerate is his tone, his hit and run personal attacks and his fundamental dishonesty about his anti-gun position. As far as I’m concerned he has outlived his usefulness as gadfly. I think the real problem is that he (we?) have nothing new to say on his topic of choice and frankly I think he has been mailing it in for quite some time. Perhaps he only needs to take a few months off, reinvigorate himself and then come back with some new ideas.

  13. Using recent stats and Google, I dug up the following:

    America
    National population of 311,591,917.
    Britian.
    National population of 62,218,781.

    I would sure hope the homicide rate in the UK is lower.

    • Actually, the rate is normally reported as number of incidents per 100,000 people, thus avoiding the problem you are alluding to.

  14. According to the DailyMailOnline link, violent crimes rate per 100,000 people:

    UK 2,034
    Sweden 1,123
    France 504
    Finland 738
    Canada 935
    USA 466
    Mexico with its gun-control__________? Numbers please.
    Where is gun-happy Switzerland? ___________?

    Australia 92 — only 92? Come-on! Oh yeah, this is that island place that keeps calling missing tourist washed-up corpses drowning victims. In Australia, unless proven otherwise a washed up eaten corpse (or whats left of it) drowned and was not first killed by a great white shark. It would be bad press otherwise and would thus reduce tourism.

      • Perhaps the media story wasn’t proofread or it could have been done by an idiot or both. Australia has been known in the past for manipulating up or down rates of violence to achieve political ends. Thanks for your reply.

        Interestingly, as of I think two years back, 25% of the violent street assaults in London are now being done by teenage girls and young women. Guns in England are mostly gone (it is illegal to defend oneself with any weapon) thus freeing up the lack of fear among thugs to attack people. Now in England with the current generation liberation empowerment movement, a whole new class based on their sex alone is joining the violent assault gang banger community.

  15. This thread was opened on the predication of a pissing match. It achieves little beyond stroking cyber egos. Pass.

  16. “…you should not demand facts or proof”
    “Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with facts.”
    Well, it’s about time he admitted it. I guess I’ll just let eveyone else waste their time with mikey cus I sure as hell won’t be anymore.

  17. Mikeb does not live in North America anymore. He has no vested interest in what happens here, so of course he’s not going to give two flyin f^cks about our rights as citizens. SO F’IN STOP TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY!!! This has bothered me since I saw a post he made that said he doesn’t live in the states. Tourists don’t make the laws. So please, Mikeb30200, piss off and go eats some pasta. Start commenting on Italy’s clusterf^ck of a system and advocate change there.

      • Do you live here? Are you planning on moving back? Will you be subject to the laws you’re proposing?

        If the answers to these questions, especially the last one, are “no”, then no, you don’t have a vested interest.

      • Maybe so. I admittedly don’t know all the facts of your situation. If you wish to explain why you left yet feel the need to publicly fight against the rights of people that live here, I’m all ears.

        But the fact that you advocate for change in a place that you no longer reside in is like me trying to change laws in Belize. Yeah I visited there once, even had a good time. But I am not in a position to say what people that live there can and can’t do.

      • Okay Mikey… not even trying to pick on you. I’m just curious at this point. I’d like some facts that you CAN provide:
        1) Are you in fact a felon?
        2) If so, what were you convicted of?
        3) Why did you emigrate? Were you or are you a citizen of the United States?
        4) What is your profession?

        Just wondering. I mean, it may make you seem a little more sincere and open to honest dialogue if you set the record straight. I am not tracking the thread where you discussed this previously.

        • Hal, who the hell do you think you are to interrogate me? The way I play it is this. I don’t give a fuck who you are or what you’ve done. I wouldn’t presume to ask you personal questions about your past. I take you at face value.

          In return I won’t humor your silly attempts to slur my name by asking those questions. You can take me at face value or not, as you like. These things about my past which some of you are obsessed with are off-topic. What I say about gun control is the topic.

          You’re not the first gun-rights guy to take this approach with me. When you can’t find a way to win the argument straight-up, you resort to this kind of personal attack by innuendo. It’s shabby and it says more about you than my refusal to cooperate says about me.

          • Uh-oh. Big “M” is back. Contrast this post with the one from little “m”, above. See the difference?

          • Wow, Mikey, a little touchy, aren’t we? Bad day, or pasta shortage? Pretty damned hypocritical for someone who lives to tell others what is wrong in their lives and how they should live them.

            I have a suggestion: why don’t you mind your own damned business, and quit dictating your insanity upon the law abiding citizens of this Great Nation?

          • Mikeb, why don’t you unburden yourself. You developed a full-blown neurosis when it occurred to you three or four years ago that maybe you would not have ruined your life if there had been extremely strict gun controls in the US when you were in your twenties and thirties. We understand. Obsessing on that thought is likely irresistible for you. You’re a victim of the demons of your memory. You should face it. It was you who were not strong enough to obey the spirit of the law, not us.

            As for the bizarre concept that on the internet your own life, work, location, and past are irrelevant, how did you ever arrive at that impression? Of course these factual circumstances are relevant. It would be irrelevant if people started to question your sex life. That has no bearing on the issues. But when you lecture folks about what gun laws should be in the US then of course having a criminal record or living outside the jurisdiction is relevant. Otherwise, people on the site will find before long that their discussions are interrupted by the idle argumentation of prisoners-with-net just trying to pass the time.

            • “It would be irrelevant if people started to question your sex life.”
              —–
              Not according to Freud. 😉

            • I’m laughing out loud, literally. Hahahahahaha. That’s the best pseudo-psychological nonsense I’ve read in a long time. You’re shootin’ in the dark and you’re way off target.

              Notice, I’m not interested in exploring where you and the others went wrong. I figure most of you are the insecure types who found guns empowering. But I’m not demanding to know your personal stories as a prerequisite to taking you seriously. And I won’t humor any attempts to do that to me.

              • “That’s the best pseudo-psychological nonsense I’ve read in a long time…I figure most of you are the insecure types who found guns empowering.”
                —–
                Pot, meet kettle.

              • I’m not shooting in the dark. The light is on your past, which reveals your present advocacy as a sham. Why listen to a guy who may not purchase a gun legally talk about why guns are illegal. If you had used guns in the past as we do, to hunt deer, or for defense when going to advise a client stuck in a lockup in the most dangerous neighborhood in Philadelphia (yes, they store an attorney’s gun at the front desk), I’d be interested. But that isn’t what you did with guns, is it Mikeyb? I’ve said it before: Deny the past actions I called into question weeks ago. Then let me prove your denials are lies. We have very open records systems in the US. Simple. I believe you are going to end up, once again, costing a web site more hits than your pointless trolling provides. What? No “Semper Fi”?

          • Hey man, just because we’re on opposite sides of this issue doesn’t mean we can’t have honest dialogue. There are a lot of accusations floating around in this thread.

            I looked at my earlier post and said to myself, “self, maybe I shouldn’t have accused him of preaching things for a society in which he is no longer a participant. Maybe he is in Italy for work, or the military. Maybe he’s there for a sick relative. I don’t know.

            It was an attempt to allow you the chance to set the record straight. Being defensive gets you nowhere. Being sincere and honest would allow us to take you more seriously, rather than being able to write you off as a hypocrite. Because I hate to break this to you, a felon with no civil rights preaching to us about gun control comes off as someone who is more concerned about his own occupational health hazards… than public safety.

            So this was not an attempt to slur your name. Your defensiveness suggests to me that you have done that yourself with your actions. I mean, I will turn those exact same questions on myself (you will see no personally identifiable is revealed):
            1) I am not a felon
            2) I have never been convicted of a crime… But I do average about one speeding ticket every two years.
            3) I have not emigrated. I am a fourth generation Pennsylvanian living in Texas.
            4) I am a Law Enforcement Officer, and an Army Infantry Officer on the weekends.
            (On a totally unrelated note, I love Lewis Machine and Tool)

            These questions are not a personal attack, unless the answers are so shameful that you cannot stand to answer them. I had a feeling that was not the case so I was TRYING to reach out to you and make this a little more fair. Your reluctance makes me question that. Tell me, who’s character is making a poor showing here?
            Failure to answer these simple questions will continue to make you look like a fool with no credibility within the scope of this argument.

            • I have to agree with HAL on this. I thought the whole point was to have open dialog since our government seems to not be so open. I feel practical gun laws should be in place. I know others feel no laws should be in place.
              Yes I lived outside the US for a number of years, and yes I even served in the IDF so a foreign military. To that end I have seen how things are done in different countries, like the UK, and Israel, which BTW has one of the most armed civilian populace in the world I think.
              I have alternate opinions and really want to know others. I can understand all points and finding something that benefits us all in the long run and puts forth a positive view of gun ownership, usage, and open carry / concealed carry benefits us all.
              As a law officer I know HAL understands the benefits of proper training, and usage, and also feels deeply about our right to bare arms.
              Ralf has also given solid insight into current laws, and I thank him for that as well.
              If we can stop the flaming attacks and think about things in a constructive manner, I only wish TTAG had a pipeline to gun advocates in government and the like. Really if we stand together, from different view points and hash out something that works then what we will see is what this country was based on. The citizen being heard, and putting forth plans based on fact, and addressing concerns. Not everyone is going to be happy, but reach across the isle as it were and get it done!

              • It was nice I met my first wife there.
                The army was great actually. There is a certain bond I think soldiers in the IDF feel that you don’t get here. I never served officially in the armed forces here, but was in ROTC for many years prior.
                I probably would have stayed in if I hadn’t damage my knee so bad, but oh well.
                I have been back since 97 and living in the golden state ever since. Now with my second wife, and wishing for change in a lot of things, but not sure how we as citizens can implement it.

                Actually since you are a law officer I was thinking it would be cool if TTAG could interview you and others about concealed carry, proper etiquette if you do and also what is law enforcement’s overall view on things. It could be one long article but worth the read I think…

              • I will be contributing articles soon, but none about that topic are planned as of yet. Besides, my agency is not typical and my response in those situations would likely be different than a regular Police Officer.

              • “Besides, my agency is not typical ”
                —–
                Hey, check it out, everyone. We’re being watched by the BATFE (ASRBF). 😉

            • You’re a slick operator, Hal, but I don’t buy it.

              “These questions are not a personal attack, unless the answers are so shameful that you cannot stand to answer them. I had a feeling that was not the case so I was TRYING to reach out to you and make this a little more fair.”

              Thanks for trying to help me like that. But, even in this slick soft explanation you get your innuendo in, don’t you, “unless the answers are so shameful that you cannot stand to answer them.”

              You wanna help me, Hal, take me at face value. Argue with me straight-up. Don’t repeat bullshit personal attacks on me that you’ve read. Stay on topic.

              • Well, ARE they too shameful? I’m trying to have a discussion with you. I want you to have the oppurtunity to lend some validity to your stance on this website. If you can’t see where being a FELON would be a conlfict of interest in this discussion, then I don’t think we’re actually HAVING a discussion. I.. I can’t even wrap my mind around that kind of stupidity… or WORSE, that kind of blind ideology… I mean… this can’t even be REAL… It’s like Robert Farago is posing as Mikey and this just the longest April Fool’s Day joke ever…
                If you can’t provide an explanation for your alleged felonious conduct then don’t expect us to take ANYTHING you say on this topic “straight up.”
                The nerve…

              • Furthermore, as you STILL have not done anything except deflect attention away from questions that are VERY pertinent to THIS topic (gun control) and THIS discussion, you CONTINUE to look like a fool with no credibility within the scope of this argument.

          • “I wouldn’t presume to ask you personal questions about your past. I take you at face value. ”

            Yet your blog has on a number of occasions posted personal information about gun rights advocates in an attempt to discredit them. I suppose you don’t take responsibility for that either.

            • It’s been a while since Ridr and I posed these challeneges to Mikey and he
              Hasn’t. Addressed. Any. Of. Them.

      • “It is a fact that if drug users knew they’d have to produce a urine sample at a later date or go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”

        Except that’s not what actually happens, is it?

        “It is a fact that if drunk drivers knew if they get caught they’d go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”

        Except that doesn’t happen, either.

        “It is a fact that if murderers knew if they get caught they’d go to jail, they would stop doing what they do.”

        Seeing a pattern yet?

    • I disagree with MikeB’s viewpoints on gun control and his Pollyanna ideals, but if’n he’s still an American Citizen, regardless of where he lives, he has a vote. I don’t care why he resides overseas; I spent 11 1/2 years overseas (not counting the 4 years in El Paso) serving our nation and voting absentee ballot.

      • Roger TexanHawk. I would never dare to claim that he doesn’t have a say if he’s still a citizen especially if he’s a Service Member in Italy. However, if he is an American who has knowingly and purposefully forsaken our social contract, you can imagine why some might be skeptical about his push for laws that will have no bearing on him. I mean, I think the carbs in all of that pasta might be killing more fat Italians than our guns… but I’m not pushing for mandatory whole grain pasta and rigatoni registration in Italy…

      • There might be a difference between serving the United States and avoiding for felonious reason…
        I will stand with you, a citizen has a voice. Yet a criminal on the run has no say in the jeopardy of my liberty, nor yours. On that I am quite firm.

  18. “if straw purchasers knew they’d have to produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail”

    Last I checked that is the case here in California.
    You walk in to a store. You ask to purchase a firearm.
    They hand you some paper work, you fill them out.
    You pay up front or right there, and you come back in 10 days.

    The 10 days is a “cool-down” because *automatically* buying a firearm means your angry.. whatever… I already own multiple guns, 10 days means jack squat to me. I digress… If a straw buyer was able to do the following..
    A) Wait 10 Days (Oh My…)
    B) Pass an FBI InstaCheck
    C) Float the tab
    The sale technically speaking… Qualifies as a legitimate sale. It’s what that buyer, nay, individual does with the firearm after the perfectly legal purchase that makes for this “what if scenario.”

    If the individual did indeed hand over a legally purchased firearm to a convicted felon, parolee, yada yada yada, they broke the law, and thats that. How do you suppose the “law” which failed to stop the straw buyer in the first place, is going to prevent such an act? “make it so guns are harder to purchase!” How? If the individual legally purchased the firearm, there was nothing they could have done to prevent the legal purchase. “Make them wait 20 days!” That only delays the inevitable. “Make the background more detailed!” Who’s to foot the bill? The buyer? The Tax-Payer? Perhaps, but still… As mentioned earlier, the firearm was purchased legally, so they already passed the background check. “The police should have a say in who can and who can’t have a gun.” Again, who foots the bill? You’re going to trust that police, who are sworn to protect the constitution, will be granted the legal right to make that decision? Yeah, good luck with that one buddy.
    That battle is going all the way to the Supreme Court, which, has favored the 2A time and time again, as they should. If someone has other “ideas” I’m all ears, because seriously, sticking your head in the sand doesn’t solve the problem(“ban all guns”). Did you know sticking feathers up your butt doesn’t make you a chicken.

    In any system there will be corruption.
    I now segway over to http://chasthuglife.blogspot.com/
    A glorious list of “Trappas-Thugs-Rappas-Bangers-Delight” The majority in possession of firearms, openly admitting to drug dealing, and flaunting their spoils and gang affiliations.

    What amazing powers these invisible laws have on criminals! They truly are the epitome of the model citizen. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    “produce the gun and paperwork at a later date or go to jail”

    Supposedly ballistic fingerprints are kept on file incase your pistol turns up at a crime scene. That said, if they find the gun, and it still has serial numbers, you’re looking at catching a case. If you “lost” the gun, and out of fear of retaliation, did not report the theft/burglary/robbery, you have a right to due process, that if anything is the only situation I could see that could potentially get you off the hook for “loosing” your firearm. You’re still looking at some kind of investigation which may or may not result in jail time because of the failure to report a crime, lost firearm, or both. “Arrest them for not having something” obviously you’re you a lawyer.

    • That 10 day waiting period doesn’t work. Straw purchasers can still beat the system in CA. My plan is for a 3 month check and yearly thereafter. That would put them out of business.

      • “That would put them out of business.”
        —–
        And when it doesn’t, you’ll push for monthly checks. When that doesn’t work, you’ll push for weekly checks. Then daily. Then hourly. Sorry, no. Maybe we should try working on the behavior problem instead of the object? Just musing, of course.

      • No matter how long a “waiting period” is criminals will always be able to obtain guns illegally on the black market and murder people. But I’m sure restricting the rights of the law-abiding millions of gun owners just to save a couple of lives is totally worth it for you, isn’t it?. Gimme a break. I don’t like what I read in the newspaper as much as the next guy, but no matter what people young and old are always going to kill each other ’til the end of time. So we might as well allow the law-abiding innocent to be able to protect themselves in times of peril from murderers and rapists who are a VERY REAL threat to anybody, no matter their demographic or income.

        People like you think that because I’m a human being, I’m supposed to go out of my way to care about the deaths of other human beings I don’t even know because “we’re all human and should care so much about the lives of all our fellow men and women”. Stop with that emotional, flower-power, preachy BS. I’m not obligated to care about the safety or lives of anyone outside of my friends and extended family, and I should never be required to.

        Wait a sec, why am I even arguing with you? You’re a felon.

      • “mikeb302000 says:
        April 11, 2012 at 14:08
        That 10 day waiting period doesn’t work. Straw purchasers can still beat the system in CA. My plan is for a 3 month check and yearly thereafter. That would put them out of business.”

        All they would have to do to beat this system is move. Many drug dealers already do this where there is a time requirement on how long their residence has to be under observation before their residence can be raided.

          • Why are you trying so hard to screw with the law abiding when you have not, nor will you ever rescind, Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968!

            http://supreme.justia.com/us/390/85/

            You know, the US Supreme Court ruling that states Mikeb and all like him are not legally liable to follow any law requiring them to knowingly violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, making over 85% of all existing gun control laws not applicable to felons.

            • Why do you find it necessary to repeat made-up bullshit about me? Why can’t you just argue straight-up?

              The reason I’m trying to “screw with the law abiding” is because you’re the source of the criminal guns. Through straw purchasing, theft and unregulated private sales, all from so-called LAW-ABIDING folks, criminals get all the guns they need.

              You’re such a patriotic and responsible citizen, why don’t you want to stop this?

              • Yeah Mickey’s still trying to figure out why the entire American population is still here with all these sweet sweet guns…

              • Actually it’s not quite the ENTIRE population. I know you don’t want to consider the 30,000 dead and 100,000 wounded each year, that’s year after year. You’re kidding yourself if you think the relatives and friends of those people are in agreement with your nutty ideas.

      • And what if the straw buyer lives in a bad neighborhood? One where there’s lots of break-ins? He goes and buys a bunch of guns, meets his 3-month check-in and then informs the criminals. The criminals then stage a break-in, take the guns, and the guy calls the cops to report a break-in and theft of his guns and a few other things. Later once the heat’s off (or in advance) the bad guys pay the straw buyer for the guns.

      • All they have to do is tell the people they sold it to to bring it back a week before their check in and if they don’t the straw purchaser will call the cops and report a stolen gun.
        Thats one loop hole i thought about the instant I read your idea. I’m sure others can and already have found others.

        All that does is makes law abiding citizens lives harder.

      • I suppose you have a constituency to support that plan??

        What? You’re just another foreigner who wants to tell us Citizens of the U.S.A. how we should run things?

        How original. Now P$ss off.

          • We know you are not too bright. We know you believe the State owns you. We know you think you have the right to force your will on others who have done nothing to you. We know you are a busy body who loves to stick his nose in other people’s business. We know you think your “feelings” trump our rights. We know you are so befuddled you can’t make an intelligent argument. We know you love to resort to ad hominems when you are on the ropes. I could go on all day, but you get the point.

      • How about a 3 month waiting period to post you nonsense? What the Hell don’t you understand about “Shall not be Infringed”?

          • So if we as law abiding citizens are already infringed, what’s a bit more encroachment? That would like my neighbor building a fence through the middle of my lawn and telling me that as long as I put up with a little he might as well take it all.
            Perhaps there is a reason you are received with the same fervor as herpes in a whorehouse.