Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Thanked 9,844 Times in 4,442 Posts
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 865 Post(s)
I'm not saying that for people to be able to go to a public event and buy firearms without a background check, is not a potential problem and I can see room for tightening up a bit on the process, but this is what I got out of that report,
"In each purchase, the investigator showed interest in buying a gun, agreed on a price and then indicated that he probably could not pass a background check.
Most sellers allowed the purchases anyway, responding in some cases by saying, "I couldn't pass one either," or "I don't care," according to the city's report.
The city has no legal authority over the dealers and is using its findings to make a point. A copy of the report is being sent to every member of Congress and the findings will be shared the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The undercover operation took place from about May to August and its $1.5 million cost was paid by city taxpayers. The city hired a team of 40 private investigators from an outside firm to make the purchases."
It sounds like a lot of the problem was with private sellers and not licensed dealers. If so, they wouldn't have been so vague and just refered to them as "sellers". So, that goes back to what slim said.
It sounds like they spent $1.5 mil to "make a point" and in order to justify that type of expense, you have to make it sound good.
Again, when you have an anti-gun agenda and it has absolutely nothing to do with preventing crime, you have to script your story very precisely.
Picking your wording is like a director, picking the right camera angles, to jerk the right emotion from the viewer.
Last edited by RRzxter; 01-21-2013 at 05:31 PM.