Man who bought 12 guns for serial killer pleads guilty

Honestly this doesn't have much to do with guns. That mother#er woulda killed people no matter what...and in this case...while it didn't prevent murders, the laws do seem to be effective in that the guy that gave him the guns is going to jail for hundreds of years. No amount of laws would have stopped that guy from killing.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, it seems that in yet another case we have someone who doesn't give a crap about the existing gun control laws, blatantly ignoring them by making a strawman purchase for a known felon.

Yeah, sure you could remain totally ignorant and look at it like that...

Or you could just accept reality and realize that basically every single first world country (other than the US) on earth, have laws in place, which wouldn't have allowed this POS strawman purchaser to buy the guns for someone else in the first place.

Ok, let's imagine your perfect world. It's illegal to own any gun. Police even go door to door and collect them. Are all the guns gone? If they aren't, how is anyone supposed to defend themselves? Call the cops? Habe you ever called the cops? Did they prevent the thing you were calling about from happening? If only some guns are banned, which ones and why? Like, exactly why. Like, I want to know why a revolver is better than a rifle, with statistics to support it. A vague answer like, "higher capacity = bad" isn't a valid argument. I want to know rates of fire, reload times, etc. If you can't answer any of these question you simply don't belong in the conversation.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, it seems that in yet another case we have someone who doesn't give a crap about the existing gun control laws, blatantly ignoring them by making a strawman purchase for a known felon.

Yeah, sure you could remain totally ignorant and look at it like that...

Or you could just accept reality and realize that basically every single first world country (other than the US) on earth, have laws in place, which wouldn't have allowed this POS straw purchaser to buy the guns for someone else in the first place.

Please, enlighten us and list these laws of which you speak.

Any gun purchased needs to be documented and registered to the "lawful gun owner"... Which essentially makes strawman purchases impossible.

HAHAHAAHA.... SERIOUSLY??? You actually believe that?

What does a registry do? Magically stop someone from ignoring the law and selling it to someone anyways?

They could report it stolen the first time... But that excuse quickly would grow old.

Kinda like burning your house down for the insurance money... It may work the first time... But your really playing with fire, if you try doing it a second time... lol.

All it took here was one time...didn't it?

Well, it could have been the 30th time for all you know... It was just the first time someone got caught doing a serious crime with one of the guns he provided though a strawman purchase..

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, it seems that in yet another case we have someone who doesn't give a crap about the existing gun control laws, blatantly ignoring them by making a strawman purchase for a known felon.

Yeah, sure you could remain totally ignorant and look at it like that...

Or you could just accept reality and realize that basically every single first world country (other than the US) on earth, have laws in place, which wouldn't have allowed this POS straw purchaser to buy the guns for someone else in the first place.

Please, enlighten us and list these laws of which you speak.

Any gun purchased needs to be documented and registered to the "lawful gun owner"... Which essentially makes strawman purchases impossible.

HAHAHAAHA.... SERIOUSLY??? You actually believe that?

What does a registry do? Magically stop someone from ignoring the law and selling it to someone anyways?

They could report it stolen the first time... But that excuse quickly would grow old.

Kinda like burning your house down for the insurance money... It may work the first time... But your really playing with fire, if you try doing it a second time... lol.

All it took here was one time...didn't it?

Well, it could have been the 30th time for all you know... It was just the first time someone got caught doing a serious crime with one of the guns he provided though a strawman purchase..

But, you stated that a registry (of the kind in "civilized" countries) would have stopped THIS incident in your previous posting. I proved that you were wrong in that assumption. Yet, you cannot even admit that you were wrong making that assumption.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I believe he is suggesting the fact the he didn't go all Stephen Paddock on them, as in he didn't use the whole arsenal to commit the crime, what you are referencing isn't really relative to this case.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I believe he is suggesting the fact the he didn't go all Stephen Paddock on them, as in he didn't use the whole arsenal to commit the crime, what your are referencing isn't really relative to this case.

I beg to differ, it is relevant here. That member stated that a gun registry would make a strawman purchase impossible. I proved that wrong. In this case, it would not have made a difference.

I will wait for them to speak for themselves though, thank you very much.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: Krakatoa

You might want to re-read my response to Sub

You are correct. I misunderstood your position and who you were referring to in your posit.

Apologies.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, it seems that in yet another case we have someone who doesn't give a crap about the existing gun control laws, blatantly ignoring them by making a strawman purchase for a known felon.

Yeah, sure you could remain totally ignorant and look at it like that...

Or you could just accept reality and realize that basically every single first world country (other than the US) on earth, have laws in place, which wouldn't have allowed this POS straw purchaser to buy the guns for someone else in the first place.

Please, enlighten us and list these laws of which you speak.

Any gun purchased needs to be documented and registered to the "lawful gun owner"... Which essentially makes strawman purchases impossible.

HAHAHAAHA.... SERIOUSLY??? You actually believe that?

What does a registry do? Magically stop someone from ignoring the law and selling it to someone anyways?

They could report it stolen the first time... But that excuse quickly would grow old.

Kinda like burning your house down for the insurance money... It may work the first time... But your really playing with fire, if you try doing it a second time... lol.

All it took here was one time...didn't it?

Well, it could have been the 30th time for all you know... It was just the first time someone got caught doing a serious crime with one of the guns he provided though a strawman purchase..

But, you stated that a registry (of the kind in "civilized" countries) would have stopped THIS incident in your previous posting.

No... I stated that a "registry" would have stopped him from hooking up more than one of his mates (who are not legally allowed to purchase one) with a gun...

In reality, It's highly unlikely this was the first time he did a strawman purchase.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, it seems that in yet another case we have someone who doesn't give a crap about the existing gun control laws, blatantly ignoring them by making a strawman purchase for a known felon.

Yeah, sure you could remain totally ignorant and look at it like that...

Or you could just accept reality and realize that basically every single first world country (other than the US) on earth, have laws in place, which wouldn't have allowed this POS straw purchaser to buy the guns for someone else in the first place.

Please, enlighten us and list these laws of which you speak.

Any gun purchased needs to be documented and registered to the "lawful gun owner"... Which essentially makes strawman purchases impossible.

HAHAHAAHA.... SERIOUSLY??? You actually believe that?

What does a registry do? Magically stop someone from ignoring the law and selling it to someone anyways?

They could report it stolen the first time... But that excuse quickly would grow old.

Kinda like burning your house down for the insurance money... It may work the first time... But your really playing with fire, if you try doing it a second time... lol.

All it took here was one time...didn't it?

Well, it could have been the 30th time for all you know... It was just the first time someone got caught doing a serious crime with one of the guns he provided though a strawman purchase..

But, you stated that a registry (of the kind in "civilized" countries) would have stopped THIS incident in your previous posting.

No... I stated that a "registry" would have stopped him from hooking up more than one of his mates (who are not legally allowed to purchase one) with a gun...

In reality, It's highly unlikely this was the first time he did a strawman purchase.

No, you stated, and I quote:

Or you could just accept reality and realize that basically every single first world country (other than the US) on earth, have laws in place, which wouldn't have allowed this POS strawman purchaser to buy the guns for someone else in the first place.

Which when asked to list the laws that would have stopped this strawman you replied with:

Any gun purchased needs to be documented and registered to the "lawful gun owner"... Which essentially makes strawman purchases impossible.

To which I posited a scenario that proved that to be wrong, bypassing the registry law to effect a strawman purchase.

Yet, you are trying to back-peddle and change your position when proven wrong to avoid realizing it would have made ZERO difference, even in your "civilized" country.

You simply cannot admit you were wrong, can you.

Shame....

originally posted by: dug88
Honestly this doesn't have much to do with guns. That mother#er woulda killed people no matter what...and in this case...while it didn't prevent murders, the laws do seem to be effective in that the guy that gave him the guns is going to jail for hundreds of years. No amount of laws would have stopped that guy from killing.

Correct.

So what are we to draw from this conclusion? I would wager that stopping the guy from wanting/acting on the urge to kill is the issue no?

That's where these conversations and actions need to go. However every f'ing time it's stuck on the guns.

I agree. The point of my OP was that new laws restricting guns will not stop these people. So, we need to change that mindset away from more laws and banning items to addressing the root problems.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I think your whole argument depends on what you would define as a 'strawman purchase'.

To me... it means someone who can legally purchase a gun, who purchases a gun for someone who can't legally buy a gun, which in turn, can't be traced back to the original purchaser.

You simply cannot admit you were wrong, can you.

Well, if we can both accept my above definition of a 'strawman purchase', then yeah your totally right... I can't accept I'm wrong... Because I'm obviously 100% right.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

But this was traced backed to the original purchaser hence the charges levied.

No worries they will have good enough personality profiles on everyone before long, hope you don't ever pre-crime.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krakatoa

I think your whole argument depends on what you would define as a 'strawman purchase'.

To me... it means someone who can legally purchase a gun, who purchases a gun for someone who can't legally buy a gun, which in turn, can't be traced back to the original purchaser.

You simply cannot admit you were wrong, can you.

Well, if we can both accept my above definition of a 'strawman purchase', then yeah your totally right... I can't accept I'm wrong... Because I'm obviously 100% right.

Why am I not surprised that you decide to cheat by redefining the term "straw man purchase" to avoid the truth that you were wrong.

It's got nothing to do with what I define that term to be. What matters is the legal definition. Let me help you a bit, the accepted legal definition of a straw man purchase is, from the Giffords Law Center:

A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person, a “straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). A straw purchaser is a person with a clean background who purchases firearms specifically on behalf of a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm because he or she is a convicted felon, domestic violence misdemeanants, juvenile, mentally ill individual or other federally or state-defined prohibited person. The straw purchaser violates federal law by making a false statement to the FFL about a material fact by lying on ATF Form 4473 (the firearm transaction record) or presenting false identification in connection with the purchase.

Source: Straw Purchases Policy Summary


Let's double-down shall we, and go to the U.S. Federal statutes covering this term (from the same source link):

Federal law prohibits straw purchases by criminalizing the making of false statements to an FFL about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, or presenting false identification in connection with the firearm purchase. Two federal statutes – 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) – are the primary laws under which straw purchases are prosecuted.

First, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) prohibits any person: [I]n connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition.

Subject to limited exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) imposes criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, upon any person who:

[K]nowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by [federal firearms law] to be kept in the records of a person licensed under [federal firearms law] or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of [federal firearms law].

Nowhere does it ever mention not being able to track it back to the purchaser.

So, yet again, even in the definition of the term you are wrong.

But keep digging that hole deeper for yourself.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

But this was traced backed to the original purchaser hence the charges levied.

Yeah, no doubt... They got their man!

But, it probably had more to do with someone ratting him out.... rather than tracing official records and good police work.

After all, the police in general couldn't usually catch the clap in a whore house... Let alone convict a strawman gun purchaser in the US... Unless their was a big mouthed rat involved.

They should hang that guy for buying a loose cannon weapons. I would never buy a gun for someone else, I might gift a gun to my kid or grandkid though if I know they are safe with them and want to learn to shoot. I only have two granddaughters that I would even consider leaving a gun to.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

That may well be the case, but unless you have proof of this assertion it still makes your argument irrelevant to this case. All cases are different, certain details in any case can change the narrative wholly.

Luckily for all, cops are somewhat still handcuffed by laws which could account for some of the ineptitude you derive, they'd be a danger if they were set too free, as would our lawmakers.

Unfortunately for us laws don't matter to criminals and their freedom gives the powerful freedom to infringe on our freedom.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dug88
Honestly this doesn't have much to do with guns. That mother#er woulda killed people no matter what...and in this case...while it didn't prevent murders, the laws do seem to be effective in that the guy that gave him the guns is going to jail for hundreds of years. No amount of laws would have stopped that guy from killing.

Correct.

So what are we to draw from this conclusion? I would wager that stopping the guy from wanting/acting on the urge to kill is the issue no?

That's where these conversations and actions need to go. However every f'ing time it's stuck on the guns.

Yup pretty much...no doubt guns are pretty effective at killing people...but someone that wants to kill someone is going to find a way...humans are pretty fragile. The question is...why does human life have such a low value to so many people nowadays? Why does it seem to be so difficult to really understand what actually happens when someone dies...people seem to have a disconnect nowadays...I dunno what it is...I still remember though...when I came to the understanding of what death really implies for something...I lost my taste for horror movies and even killing bugs and such needlessly...don't get me wrong...I understand it's necessary but it should have a purpose and it shouldn't ever be done lightly.

There's a lot of dehumanization in the world...I dunno if it's new or not...but people seem pretty eager to take whatever they dislike and turn it into their enemy...once you do that I guess it becomes easy to not worry about killing someone

How long after the fact did the murders occur, and how did the statute of limitations come into play?

There are exception to the time limits, depending on the circumstances of the case, and how the offence came to be known.