Hundreds of guns stolen

[burf]

http://www.39online.com/newsfix/kiah-newsfix-getting-guns-20120126,0,2083435.story

more:

Skilled crew steals 274 guns in Houston

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Skilled-crew-steals-274-guns-in-Houston-2724019.php

Since Fast and Furious has been apparently shut down, it looks as though the bad guys are resorting to break-ins at gun and pawn shops. Will this lead to the reopening of Holder Guns and Pawn or the State Department SuperStore of Arsenal Supply?

Is this is what ws meant by "gun control under the radar"?

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Looks like we have a problem......

but then, what could go wrong?

[ileus]

2. Let me be the first to say....hidden criminal, it's the pawns shops fault, gun culture...

[iverglas]

3. forgive my thickness

What earthly connection is there between this phenomenon and Fast and Furious / Eric Holder?

The thefts were by criminals from private premises. ?

The thieves targeted gun stores and pawn shops, working at night when the businesses were closed.

And so far, since the break-ins started six weeks ago at the Houston area businesses, the thieves have scooped up 274 guns, including rifles and handguns. Jewelry and electronics were taken as well.

But it's the stolen guns officials are concerned about. Only one gun has been recovered so far, authorities said at a Crime Stoppers news conference Thursday. It was used in a crime committed out of state.

Without question, the gun used in the crime was not used by the people committing the thefts. They are stealing to sell.

So when the out-of-state criminal in question answers a survey while in prison, they will be saying they acquired the gun "on the street".

Stolen guns, no, they're no problem at all.

The heists, which officials describe as well-orchestrated and possibly involving up to seven people, began Dec. 2 at a Cypress pawn shop. Since then, seven other shops have been hit, the most recent on Jan. 14.

Three men were arrested in that incident. They were on the roof of a Spring business, carrying two-way radios and had masks, said Harris County Pct. 4 Asst. Chief Deputy Mark Herman. The business' burglary alarm alerted law enforcement officers.

We'll grant that virtually no retail premises are going to be break-in-proof, but should it be possible for thieves to "move quickly to get in and out of stores before authorities can arrive to stop them"? When it's known that premises with large numbers of firearms are being targeted in an area, does the duty of care go up slightly? Is the duty of care for firearms sellers not such that something better really can be expected?

[burf]

4. It's simply a market driven economy.

When Fast and Furious was going strong, the bad guys would just go into a gun shop, buy whatever they needed and walk out the door. They would then either walk them across the border or deliver to their customers here in the US, selling or simply delivering previous orders and repeat as necessary. It looks as though Fast and Furious is no longer a source and with the additional requirements of Demand Letter 3, a new source of guns was needed. Hence, the pawn shops and small gun dealers are being hit. Another advantage is they don't have to pay for something they can steal.

As far as the source of gun violence, the stolen guns are no different than the Fast and Furious. Two of the weapons found at the scene where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed were Fast and Furious guns. There was some talk that the gun that was used to kill ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was also F&F. The documents related to his death are sealed.

As far as security, I agree, they have got to do a better job. As the police said, the thieves are professionals, and the cops are trying to play catch up. In the first robbery that took place, the alarm went off, the cops showed up but found nothing and did not investigate further. It sounds as though they just treated it as a false alarm and left the store. I don't guess Mr Storeowner was very happy when he opened up the next day!

On one of the later burglaries, the same thing happened and they did get investigate further and thats when the caught the three bad guys. Just part of the learning curve I guess.

[iverglas]

5. yeah, sez you

When Fast and Furious was going strong, the bad guys would just go into a gun shop, buy whatever they needed and walk out the door. They would then either walk them across the border or deliver to their customers here in the US, selling or simply delivering previous orders and repeat as necessary.

Forgive me if what I say is: bullshit. But hey, nice try. You can unknot yourself now if you like.

As far as security, I agree, they have got to do a better job. As the police said, the thieves are professionals, and the cops are trying to play catch up.

Yes, we're agreed as far as that goes. It just seems to me these things are entirely foreseeable ...

[burf]

6. Well, since you insisted............

http://www.directorbordernarcotics.com/2011/06/atf-agents-we-were-ordered-to-let-guns.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shocking-claim-feds-bought-and-sold-fast-and-furious-guns/

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20039031.html

BTW, never knotted up in the first place. No problem with the bullshit or any other part of the bull. I did have some heifers, but sold them so have no need of any of the bull,

Thanks for askin' though.

[iverglas]

7. ah, you thought maybe I was born yesterday?

But hey, I always enjoy perusing the bowels of the right wing on the internet.

http://www.directorbordernarcotics.com/

Killed In The Line Of Duty By Mexican Bandits..With The Assistance Of The Obama Administrations Department of Justice..Department of Homeland Security and Bureau Of Alcohol Tobacco And Firearms..All contributed to Brians murder.

Were you really sure you wanted to do that??

... That other one, that's just weirdness agglomerated. Where do people find these things ...

[burf]

8. You may not like the source, but can

you refute the facts? I tried to find a piece by Rachel Maddow, cause I figured she would be wound up like a 25 cent pocket watch, like she was the last time I watched her show. (Her screed right after the Giffords shooting). But alas, I could find nothing. Sorry.

Really, that's why I put the CBS link last. Shame on me, I guess.

[iverglas]

11. for chrissakes, I KNOW the facts

It was your bizarre assertion that these gun store thefts are an unintended consequence of the shutdown of Fast and Furious that I was laughing at.

I wonder what explains all the other gun store burglaries in the world ... a quick google finds a discussion at DU of one in Indianapolis, my posts about a few heists in Toronto ...

And then the links to the site with right-wing allegations of conspiracy and Democratic administration wrongdoing (and that's a pretty damned weird site just generally, masquerading as some official portal as it seems to be doing) ... just hmm, eh?

[burf]

13. The gun store burglaries in the links

at the OP happened where? Houston TX.

What country that guns have been going to, both via F&F and other means, borders Houston TX? Mexico.

The video posted at the "pretty damned weird site...." is from the Fox affiliate on Phoenix, AZ.

Where have I come anywhere near suggesting that this has any bearing on gun heists anywhere other than Houston? If I thought the heists in Toronto, Indianapolis, Timbuktu or anywhere else, I would have addressed that.

Goodnite Gracie.

[liberal_biker]

10. Attacking the source rather than the argument?

Bad form - and an indication that you don't have anything of substance to offer.

[iverglas]

12. hahahaha

What I offered of substance was that a poster here linked to a right-wing weirdo site.

I haven't found an argument to attack yet, I fear ...

If you PM me an address, I'll send you the standard-issue signed photo, free of charge to every new fan club member!

[liberal_biker]

14. Fan club?

My my - we are full of ourselves aren't we?

What you offered was nothing but pointless ridicule. Maybe that passes for intelligent discussion where you're from, I don't know.

[DanTex]

16. The other one is theblaze.com, Glenn Beck's site!

They say it's supposed to be like a HuffingtonPost for wingnuts, in other words, exactly the kind of place where you expect pro-gunners to be spending a lot of time.

And yes, it is always fun to see what kind of fringe-right-wing news sources the pro-gunners are going to be linking to next. And this was a really interesting collection. I mean, yes, FoxNews and Townhall and WND are pretty bad, but the pro-gunners rely on them so much that they've become commonplace. But these links represent new and original opportunities for right-wing voyeurism!

[gejohnston]

17. the important thing is

can you dispute the content of that specific article? Why are you obsessed with genetic fallacies?

[DanTex]

35. Why is that the important thing?

The point iverglas has made several times here: I already know about Fast and Furious, and if I wanted to read more about it, I certainly wouldn't turn to Glenn Beck. Would you?

I've said plenty about F&F on this board before, but this post wasn't about F&F. It was about the tendency of pro-gunners here to link to the looniest right-wing websites, presumably because those are the only places they can find the pro-gun slant they are seeking. And this tendency is something that I find both very amusing and very telling.

And, I was explaining to iverglas and other progressives who might be reading this what theblaze.com is.

You see, I understand that many pro-gunners enjoy the subtlety and sophistication of Glenn Beck's take on things, and thus are very familiar and comfortable with theblaze and other sites like WND and townhall. And I don't mean to just single out pro-gunners. For example, if there are any DUers who support teaching creationism in schools, or are in favor of tax cuts for the top 1%, or are opposed to gay marriage, etc., these kinds DUers would probably also appreciate Glenn Beck's unique insight and political commentary.

However, (though I hate to generalize) I would say that the majority of DUers are not avid Glenn Beck fans, and some might not even know what theblaze.com is. So, for the sake of these non-Glenn-Beck-readers, I think pointing out what the blaze is is a useful public service announcement. After all, it would be understandable, say, if some DUers didn't even want to click on a link to Glenn Beck's website. Don't you think they should be warned?

[gejohnston]

36. that is the only thing that matters

all he did was copy and paste CBS and maybe scribble their own spin. Beck does not sit down and write is own stuff.

No, I would not turn to Glen Beck, but I would not turn to David Brock either. Beck is a self described rodeo clown and Brock is a smear artist that switched sides after he figured out how off the rails and homophobic his "friends" were. I doubt the OP knew who owned it.

Have you seen a good article on FF on a progressive web site? Every gun article I read on the progressive side so far has been below high school quality: poorly written, unresearched, and dishonest. The problem with FF is that sources like McClatchy, CBS, Latin American Herald, Stratfor, Wikileaks et al back up pro-gun claims.
People read the other side's propaganda for a number of reasons. Guns have nothing to do with those other issues.

Actually you do over generalize quite often.

[DanTex]

37. Maybe to you. I care about different things than you.

You don't need to bother making excuses why you and the other pro-gunners shun progressive sources in favor of Fox and Glenn Beck. To you "high-school quality" simply means that "it doesn't support the pro-gun dogma", we get it.

And by the way, if it's actually true that all the pro-gun claims can be found on non-right-wing sources, do you ever wonder why we keep seeing links to FOX or SipseyStreet or Glenn Beck? I mean, if you can actually get the same story from a legitimate news source like NYT or WaPo than you could get from WND, given that this is a Democratic site, don't you think it would make more sense to just go with the legitimate news source rather than the right-wing propaganda site? I hope you will answer this question.

Speaking of "genetic fallacy", how many studies have I posted that you have had nothing to say about except for "Joyce Foundation"? Even the ones that aren't funded by the Joyce Foundation, it doesn't keep you from your favorite talking point. Or wait, there's your other favorite talking point which is that studies "don't count" unless the person has a PhD in sociology, rather than economics or public health. But you're never able to refute the content of any of the research, all you do is complain about the authors.

I really don't think that you're the right person to be leveling "genetic fallacy" accusations.

[gejohnston]

38. lack of high school quality as in

poorly written crap.
let me find an example
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/watch-nra-heads-explode-al-qaeda-spo
this example mixes "you can buy machine guns" canard with the hypocritical "we were against Bush's list before we were for it"
Did Mr. Neiwert think to ask the ATF if you could do so? No, it was a copy and past of this
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201106030034

http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/program-grants-list-3?rr=1&OrderBy=GrantDate&OrderAsc=0&pageNum=3

Show me an progressive source that wrote an accurate and well written piece and I'll give it the credit it deserves. They can start with the next "gun show loophole" screed by changing the "private sellers are not required to" to the more accurate "private sellers are prohibited from."

Myself and others have several times, you selectively read. I don't speak for others. My guess it is the first thing that comes up in some search engine. Beck told Forbes that he is in it for money, and does't give a rat's ass about the political process. Brock started MM after getting fired from American Spectator.


For the same reason I ignore climate change research by economists with grants from API. An echo chamber is an echo chamber. Who it is and why does not matter. It is not so much of a genetic fallacy when the same group that pours money in a political cause also funds the research, done mostly by the same few people to justify it. That is a legitimate red flag.
We, and I, have also pointed out flaws and asked legitimate questions about these studies. I'll still waiting for answers that does not involve "you don't accept it only because you don't like it or not educated enough to see its brilliance." Actually I have. You have never been able to refute or challenge (outside of personal attacks) of any criminologist who's research does not confirm your own bias.


I really don't think you are the right person to be giving lectures on critical thinking or scientific method.

[DanTex]

39. Like I said: To you "high-school quality" simply means that "it doesn't support the pro-gun dogma"

Those examples aren't poorly written, it's just that you just disagree with their point of view. For example, the articles (actually it's a blog entries not a news article) didn't say the thing about getting machine guns, that was the Al-Qaeda guy. So your issue is not with the quality of the writing or the accuracy. The problem you have is that you don't think the gun show loophole is a big deal, nor do you think it's noteworthy that this Al-Qaeda guy is instructing people to exploit the loophole to buy guns without a background check. And you will find many like-minded individuals writing for WorldNetDaily and theblaze.com. But liberal blogs are going to have a more liberal take on the issue.

Also, the reason pro-gunners cite Glenn Beck or WND rather than credible news sources is not because of a google search. Don't be silly. The reason is that credible media sources will report the facts without the right-wing spin, and what pro-gunners are after really is the spin. For example, while a story in, say, the NYT would surely point out that there were indeed problems with F&F, it wouldn't hint at a conspiracy theory by the Obama administration to renew the AWB. And the NYT would likely point out that the number of guns lost by F&F is tiny compared to the overall flow of guns to Mexico, another fact that pro-gunners would like to ignore as they like to pretend that the ATF, rather than lax gun laws, are responsible for arming the Mexican drug cartels.

Oh, and regarding the research, I forgot to mention your third-favorite talking point, thanks for reminding me. This is the one where you claim that flaws "have been pointed out" at some previous time by some previous person. The "flaws" are kind of like the contents of the case in Pulp Fiction: they never actually make an appearance, and nobody knows what they actually are, but that just heightens their mystique...

[gejohnston]

40. I thought

their point of view was totally honest and void of propaganda and opinion. By not pointing out the inaccuracy of the the Al Qaida claim (and judging from some of the free republic like comments) it is dishonesty by omission. A blog post that basically rewrite another blog post. You are right, it is not a news article, but that is becoming a distinction without a difference. While I do disagree with his view on that specific issue, the term "gun show loophole" is still a misnomer because it is not a loophole because as it has been pointed out before that private individuals are prohibited by law from using NICS. It would be equally accurate to call it the "want ad loophole." If the police or an FFL holder is willing to do it for you, great. It does not change the fact that you are talking about intra-state private sales. If the states want to require it, great. Many of us would support that. I doubt the commerce clause would allow the feds to. By the same token, I think national reciprocity would violate the 10A.

That was my best guess, can you show one time I personally have used such questionable links?

For example, while a story in, say, the NYT would surely point out that there were indeed problems with F&F, it wouldn't hint at a conspiracy theory by the Obama administration to renew the AWB. And the NYT would likely point out that the number of guns lost by F&F is tiny compared to the overall flow of guns to Mexico, another fact that pro-gunners would like to ignore as they like to pretend that the ATF, rather than lax gun laws, are responsible for arming the Mexican drug cartels.

this NYT? What does NYT say about OWS?
http://wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/wmd-j15.shtml
In other words, you only accept your spin. At least the spin you like. From US does not necessarily equal "semi autos from gun shops." in any meaningful degree. Not saying it does not happen, just saying I find it odd that a $50B industry that builds its own armored vehicles, submarines, buys grenades and heavy weapons from abroad, are going to buy civilian guns in small quantities at inflated prices. I have yet to see a compelling argument.
http://www.military.com/video/combat-vehicles/combat-tanks/mexican-cartels-using-homemade-tanks/983458998001/


No one said the number was large, about 2K. MM and Think Progress have been ignoring the GAO and ATF's own IG, how does that make them better?


They also Poo-pooed these Wikileaks sources:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112595/cable-lax-honduran-controls-on.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112594/cable-guatemalan-military-selling.html
http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/03/09MONTERREY100.html#

these right wing sources?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112616/drug-gangs-help-themselves-to.html
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=390473&CategoryId=14091
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/15/world/fg-mexico-arms-race15
http://www.wwcummings.com/2011/02/25/wikileaks-state-dept-traces-cartel-grenades-mex-army-major-aided-traffickers/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story


http://insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/1871-black-market-weapons-find-new-routes-to-mexico

For two decades, [Mexico's] southern border has been a port of entry for the weapons that feed the country's black market. There are 956 miles of border between Mexico and Guatemala, where it is enough to arrive to cities like Ciudad Hidalgo, Ciudad Cuauhtemoc, or in border towns like Corozal, Talisman or Carmen Xhan, cross the checkpoints and walk around Tecun Uman, La Mesilla, Peten, El Carmen and Gracias a Dios to be offered weapons. Salesmen in shacks, adobe huts, or in the middle of the street offer the old M-16s and Galils that the Central American civil wars left behind; or more modern weapons, like the M72 and AT4 (anti-tank rockets), RPG-7 rocket-launchers, or 37-millimeter MGL grenade-launchers, with tracers and armor-piercing capacity, sold by catalogue, and a one-week wait before delivery.

The weapons arrive mostly from the United States, through air or maritime routes to Guatemala for distribution in Mexico, Central America, or South America. The advantage that this market offers is that purchases can be made without any middlemen, and that crossing is much easier than on the northern border.

Actually they have, I don't have time to look up past conversations that you won't read. They have been pointed out to you, and about half of your "replies" in DU2 were deleted because someone was offended enough by your condescending name calling to tell the mods.

[DanTex]

46. Like I said: To you "high-school quality" simply means that "it doesn't support the pro-gun dogma"

The fact that you don't like the term "gun show loophole" doesn't mean it's a misnomer. What you want is for everyone to present just the facts the pro-gunners wants to hear, using language supportive of pro-gun propaganda. And, like I said, if that's what you're looking for, you'll find it at right-wing sites like WND. Conversely, if you go to progressive blogs, you're going to find intelligent, progressive views, for example, people who are more concerned about how easy the loophole makes it for criminals and gun traffickers rather than whining about terminology.

Regarding F&F, we've had this discussion before. You don't have facts on your side, and so you try to hide behind a wall of links to mostly irrelevant pieces of anecdotal evidence.

Re: the science, how did I know that whatever you wrote in response was not going to actually reveal any of the supposed fatal "flaws" in the body of firearms research, but only more vague allusions as in "they have been pointed out to you". LOL! Joyce! Joyce!

Anyway, here's the thing gej. Do you ever wonder why there are a total of zero prominent intelligent progressives who agree with anything that you and the other pro-gunners are saying? Do you really think that every single voice that might be considered sane or insightful by progressives in general is simply dead wrong about guns, that all the science journals have some anti-gun agenda, and that meanwhile people like Grover Norquist and Glenn Beck have got it all figured out?

It's not "genetic fallacy" to point out that the people who believe X are a bunch of crazy right-wingers, while the sane people seem to universally believe Y. True, all the sane people could be wrong, and the crazies could be right, which is why you shouldn't make up your mind solely based on who is supporting what position. But it's a pretty good indication. When you find yourself constantly fighting against mainstream science, progressive commentators, and credible news sources, you really should ask yourself if maybe you're missing something...

[gejohnston]

48. I'm not missing anything

The fact that you don't like the term "gun show loophole" doesn't mean it's a misnomer. What you want is for everyone to present just the facts the pro-gunners wants to hear, using language supportive of pro-gun propaganda. And, like I said, if that's what you're looking for, you'll find it at right-wing sites like WND. Conversely, if you go to progressive blogs, you're going to find intelligent, progressive views, for example, people who are more concerned about how easy the loophole makes it for criminals and gun traffickers rather than whining about terminology.

It is a misnomer like it or not. I don't read and I have not linked to WND. Most views on progressive sites are thoughtful and intelligent, but not on this subject.

Regarding F&F, we've had this discussion before. You don't have facts on your side, and so you try to hide behind a wall of links to mostly irrelevant pieces of anecdotal evidence.

Actually I do, I have seen zero evidence from your side.

Re: the science, how did I know that whatever you wrote in response was not going to actually reveal any of the supposed fatal "flaws" in the body of firearms research, but only more vague allusions as in "they have been pointed out to you". LOL! Joyce! Joyce!

I must have hit a nerve because you are back to your patronizing and juvenile self. It was kind of annoying that you would be deleted while I was typing my reply. In many cases, I and others could not post our reply for that reason. Your defense of Joyce studies were less than impressive. You would call the NSSF a fatal flaw, it is dishonest and inconsistent not to call Joyce a fatal flaw.

It's not "genetic fallacy" to point out that the people who believe X are a bunch of crazy right-wingers, while the sane people seem to universally believe Y. True, all the sane people could be wrong, and the crazies could be right, which is why you shouldn't make up your mind solely based on who is supporting what position. But it's a pretty good indication. When you find yourself constantly fighting against mainstream science, progressive commentators, and credible news sources, you really should ask yourself if maybe you're missing something...

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_genetic.htm
If you say so.
Hemenway et al are mainstream science? You are the only one that claims that. Maybe you are missing something.
When progressive commentators say something that is demonstrably false (plastic gun hoax, can legally buy gun in the next state, other technical and legal details) they lose credibility. Someone questions anyone's "need" on things they know nothing about lose credibility. Admitted drug users (Bill Mauher, Randi Rhoades) have no business lecturing me about gang violence in Mexico when they are fueling it with their money lose credibility. Reading from Brady press release without looking up the laws or an actual expert on the subject loses their credibility. So no, I don't need to question my views and experience based on anything they say.
You called the "mainstream credible sources" I listed as "anecdotal nonsense". There is no reason for me to ask myself anything. How about you?

[DanTex]

49. ...

It is a misnomer like it or not. I don't read and I have not linked to WND. Most views on progressive sites are thoughtful and intelligent, but not on this subject.

But you do defend the practice of linking to WND or Glenn Beck. Would it be so hard to just say, "I support RKBA, but links to Glenn Beck and WND don't belong on a Democratic forum"?

I must have hit a nerve because you are back to your patronizing and juvenile self. It was kind of annoying that you would be deleted while I was typing my reply. In many cases, I and others could not post our reply for that reason. Your defense of Joyce studies were less than impressive. You would call the NSSF a fatal flaw, it is dishonest and inconsistent not to call Joyce a fatal flaw.

Whatever you do, just make sure that you don't actually mention any of the actual "flaws" in the firearms research. Always refer to them in vague indirect terms. This is very important, because as soon as you make a specific claim, you might have to actually defend it. It's much easier to just keep harping on a post I had deleted six months ago...

If you say so.
Hemenway et al are mainstream science? You are the only one that claims that. Maybe you are missing something.

Hemenway is just one scientist (or social scientist, if that's your objection). The fact that you hate him so much doesn't mean that he represents the entire body of research. But, yes, he is mainstream: he is a Harvard professor and has an extensive publication record in peer-reviewed journals, and his research is line with what many other researchers at many other top universities have found. I'm not sure what definition of mainstream you're going by...

When progressive commentators say something that is demonstrably false (plastic gun hoax, can legally buy gun in the next state, other technical and legal details) they lose credibility. Someone questions anyone's "need" on things they know nothing about lose credibility. Admitted drug users (Bill Mauher, Randi Rhoades) have no business lecturing me about gang violence in Mexico when they are fueling it with their money lose credibility. Reading from Brady press release without looking up the laws or an actual expert on the subject loses their credibility. So no, I don't need to question my views and experience based on anything they say.

Except that you never actually demonstrate that they say false things. The only examples you could come up with are the "gunshow loophole" thing, which is quibbling about terminology, and the "machine guns" thing, a statement that was not made by the blogger but by the Al-Qaeda guy. As with the science, you like to pretend that there are "flaws" or "demonstrably false statements" everywhere, but when it comes down to it, except for a few minor nitpicks, there's nothing there.

You called the "mainstream credible sources" I listed as "anecdotal nonsense". There is no reason for me to ask myself anything. How about you?

The reason I called your links are "anecdotal nonsense" is because the stories don't actually provide evidence for the case you're trying to make. Sure, LAT or whoever might run a story about some military grade weapons coming from central America into Mexico, but you won't find LAT denying that US FFLs are a major source of the weapons. Why? Because there's no evidence to back that view. Only right-wing sources make the leap from "some weapons come from elsewhere" to "US FFLs are not a major source", and that's why pro-gunners need to cite WND to make there case.

Or you can do what you just did. Post a wall of links to stories which are credible, but which don't actually say what you want them to say.

[gejohnston]

53. one more time

What ever if that is important to you. I fail to see the need for Soviet style minders. How do you feel about posters on your side supporting the PATRIOT ACT and extraordinary rendition (polite way of saying disappearing) is OK? Or how about "it's the victims fault for riding his bike in an underpopulated area"? There are liberals and there are people who just like the idea of being a liberal.

Actually I have. Your defense of them is only that "they are Harvard professors" and all others are "must have been payed off by the right wing or is just the head of the criminology dept. at a state university." So, look in the mirror before you feed me that shit. Terms matter for a reason, otherwise propaganda buzz words would not be created. It matters when one of the AWB studies (a paid one done by a private corporation) spent an entire page on NFA items (machine guns and destructive devices) for no apparent reason since Gander Mountain or any gun shop I have been in sells none of those. Did they think you can get a machine gun with a simple NICS check?

Hemenway is one of ten to twenty that works at the same place to keep the grants flowing to their employer. They are probably true believers. Are economists really scientists? He is a Harvard man just like George W. Bush and Doug "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet" Feith.

Actually myself and others have in the relevant areas. You selectively read. Nickpicks only to you. If it is something you can not refute, you whine about whining and nitpicking.

Actually it does provide evidence. Where is the evidence that FFLs are the major source? Or even a major source? Like I said before, it defies logic. I only see it from Brady et al when they drag out the 90 percent BS even though the GAO and ATF actually said more like 12 percent comes from US sources. US sources means what? Can you show me a credible news source saying FFLs are a major source? One proving it other than "gun control advocates claim?"

[gejohnston]

43. correction

I said "below high school quality" Copy and pasting without no detail or correction in errors made by Al Qaida or anyone else is not "well written." Lazy writing at its best.

[iverglas]

20. oh, is THAT what it is!

No wonder his name was there so much.

Truly unbelievable, ain't it just?

Ah, memory lane. It wasn't so long ago that somebody in this very forum had to explain to me who Glenn Beck was ... and that was a while after somebody had to explain who Bill O'Reilly was ...

[gejohnston]

23. it is?

First I have heard of it. I never heard of of the Blaze until now either.

[Callisto32]

18. No, but I sure knew about the genetic fallacy back then...

[iverglas]

21. such a lack of clarity here

I KNOW all about operation fast & furious. Where have you been??

I'm famous. I got three posters tombstoned for approvingly posting the right-wing meme that it was all a conspiracy at high levels of the Obama administration, designed to drum up support for draconian gun control.

I am not interested in the content here; it's old and the insinuations about it are done to death. I am interested in the SOURCES. Not to rebut the content; to query why those sources are being cited at this website by a liberal / progressive / D/democratic member of Democratic Underground.

Getting it this time around?

[Callisto32]

22. There's that "humor" again.

[Callisto32]

24. Why do you presume we don't understand.

Every time someone challenges you, it is because that person didn't understand, didn't read, doesn't think. blah blah blah.

I'm telling you the SOURCE DOES NOT MATTER, THE CONTENT DOES. Logical fallacies are not "sometimes" fallacies. It isn't "the genetic fallacy unless...."

I don't know what to make of you. You pretend to be an academic, but then apparently take pride in using force against ideas with which you disagree. If your ideas are really superior, you could let them stand on their own merit, and take hold in the DU marketplace. Academics (real ones, anyway) understand that if you give bad ideas enough rope they will hang themselves.


Getting it this time around?


I WANT to interact with you on a more productive level, iverglas, I really do. What are you so afraid of?

[iverglas]

25. WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS?

I'm telling you the SOURCE DOES NOT MATTER, THE CONTENT DOES. Logical fallacies are not "sometimes" fallacies. It isn't "the genetic fallacy unless...."

If I say in great big letters I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE CONTENT will it come clear then?

It is only a genetic fallacy if I am citing the sources to rebut the content.

I'M NOT.

I can make it bigger if you like.

Let's do one of those reductio things.

If someone comes here and posts a link to some content at stormfront, will you be expecting me to address that content -- even if it is only "the sky is blue" and I express no disagreement?

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE CONTENT, and I HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE CONTENT.

So how in the fucking hell could I be committing the fallacy of pretending to rebut the content by attacking the source when I have not said anything at all about the content????

[Callisto32]

26. If you aren't citing the sources to rebut the content. Why are you citing them?

i guess that is what I don't understand.

You have missed my point completely. I am saying if you aren't attempting a genetic fallacy why are you bringing up the source at all?

Wait? So, your post was essentially intended to say "See, see, s/he looks at right-wing websites!!!!"

That's even more pointless than a logical fallacy.

Edit, okay, editing mistake on my part, there is a sentence in one of my above posts that was intended to be edited out. Sorry for the confusion.

[PavePusher]

27. It's Jello. Don't waste your time and energy. n/t

[Callisto32]

28. I am unfamilliar with this "jello" slang.

Please elaborate.

[oneshooter]

30. "Like nailing jello to a wall" n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. "Like nailing jello to a wall"

Somehow I feel the jello activity may be more fun.

[iverglas]

41. to elaborate further

It is a disruptive insult posted for no purpose but to disrupt and insult, and every single time it was posted in a thread in this forum at DU2 it was deleted by moderators because it was disruptive.

This is the brave new world of DU3.

[oneshooter]

52. And you got this discription from....................

"It is a disruptive insult posted for no purpose but to disrupt and insult"

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

55. amazingly

I got it by applying reason to observation.

What on earth are you on about now?

[oneshooter]

57. So it is your personal description? Not found anywhere else on the planet?

[beevul]

61. "and every single time it was posted in a thread in this forum at DU2 it was deleted by moderators"

"and every single time it was posted in a thread in this forum at DU2 it was deleted by moderators"

No. LOL. It really wasn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=iverglas+nail+down+jello&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en



Of course that doesn't mean you're trying to have a new precedent set based on one which does not exist and never did... or anything.


And theres also the possibility that...you meant Y instead of "every single time it was posted in a thread in this forum at DU2" (X).

I'm sure you'll clarify that for us.

[iverglas]

42. you have ALMOST got it

See whether you can get there from here now:

"See, see, s/he looks at is linking to right-wing websites at DEMOCRATIC Underground."

Is it coming clear at all? Maybe if you rub your eyes and look around you?

[iverglas]

51. what???

If you aren't citing the sources to rebut the content. Why are you citing them?

I'M NOT CITING THEM, for the love of it all.

I am ASKING why someone comes to DEMOCRATIC Underground and offers me material at various RIGHT-WING internet sites to bolster WHATEVER case they are trying to make.

I DON'T WANT TO READ Glenn Beck's website.

I DON'T WANT TO READ whatever that other weirdo place was.

I DON'T WANT TO READ something that tells me that the Obama administration is part of a conspiracy that caused X and Y and blah blah blah.

(And when I read and was responding to the post in question, it did not have the famous MSM link subsequently added to it.)

I was only here in the first place laughing at the ridiculous notion that people are breaking into gun stores to get guns because they can't get them from the ATF anymore.

And the strange reply, that only gun store thefts in Place X are to be considered in this situation, and gun store thefts in Places Y and Z are not, because gun store thefts in Place X are a totally different phenomenon ... well that's just not even trying. I am expected to think that there have never been and are not and will never be gun store thefts in Place X, even though they happen all the time all over the rest of the place, and so the ones happening now are a result of the shutdown of F&F. Have you ever heard anything so silly?

Anyhow, who is going to stand up and say "at Democratic Underground, we do not provide links to Glenn Beck or any other horrible right-wing source for any reason ever, other than to demonstrate what a horrible right-wing source it is"? Anybody?

[ileus]

9. It's easy to get spoiled that's for sure.

[one-eyed fat man]

60. Somehow I have the impression

That had the business owners had camped out in their stores and blasted the burglars to kingdom come when they broke in you'd get all weepy how those poor "unpleasant youth" driven by economic circumstances to stealing shouldn't have been killed.

With the cities that average the FASTEST response to an URGENT 911 call being on the order of 12 minutes, the burglars likely have quite a window to work in. Response to burglar alarms is sometimes slower depending on any history of false alarms.

Likely, that is how the ring will eventually get busted, someone will stake out likely spots and ambush them. The police might, if sufficient hue and cry arises, station a cop or two in a couple likely targets and get lucky. Otherwise it will turn into a self-help mission.

Back in the day when we used to guard NATO weapons sites we had a pretty good track record. Bader-Meinhof didn't get any and we killed the ones who tried. That seems to be the only level of security that meets with your definition of secure.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. So does this constitute secure?

The thieves are smashing their way through concrete block walls.

I'm sure someone will come along and tell us how this is all the gun store owner's fault for not securing the firearms.

[Callisto32]

19. Clearly, we need to legislate tripple-thick cinder-block walls for all dangerous items@!!1!12@!!!

Damn, that cabinet under the sink just got a lot smaller (or bigger, lol).

[Clames]

34. It really wouldn't matter...

...even with the level of security of arms rooms used in the military they are usually only rated for 20 minutes against forced entry (even says so on the certification tag on the multi-ton vault door). Some will add an interior steel cage and bolt lockers to the structure itself. None of it will last more than minutes against a modern demolition saw.

[Starboard Tack]

29. "So does this constitute secure?"

Apparently not!

[Callisto32]

31. Clearly the problem is that the guns are not stored in brick shit-houses.

[Starboard Tack]

32. How about an armory? Isn't that the traditional place for so many arms?

Why does a pawn shop, with no 24/7 security, have enough weapons to arm hundreds? What kind of system is that? It's a joke. The whole gun control legislation is a joke. The only people registering firearms are the good guys. Hope none of you ever have to pawn your pistol.

[PavePusher]

44. Are you under the false impression that all armories are under 24 hour guard?

Or that they are made out of something other than concrete and brick?

Where?

[Starboard Tack]

47. No, but shouldn't they be? Makes sense.

[X_Digger]

50. Yes, let's make gun ownership (and sales) so expensive the poor are fucked right out of it.

Let's require safes that are bolted to the floor and take an hour to break into, right?

So fuck renters, fuck anyone who doesn't have $10k to blow in a jewelry safe, eh?

Transparent.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Who's talking about ownership?

How you store your weapons is up to you and you should be accountable. Not much to ask. If you want to be a gun merchant, with hundreds of firearms, you should keep them secure for the very reason we are discussing this. Otherwise, why not just hand them out to anyone who wants one?

I've no idea what you mean by renters and jewelry safes. This was a pawnbroker. Did you miss that part?

[X_Digger]

59. I was jumping ahead a few steps (and remembering previous conversations we've had about this)

How long do you think most safes (not bank vaults) take to crack?

TL-30 rated safes (the most common safes in commercial jewelry establishments)- take about 30 minutes to crack by someone who knows what they're doing.

Prices start at $2,000 for one just large enough to put a couple of handguns in. One big enough to hold a store full of guns? $10k.

And that still only takes 30 minutes to cut into.

[PavePusher]

58. What level of security should they have?

Even live, armed guards aren't perfect.

Should all the exterior walls be solid metal? (Think "plasma cutter".)

There's the old saw about "build a better mousetrap" that also applies.

[Callisto32]

56. Sorry.

That was an attempt at a joke. I live in a place where outhouses were still fairly common up to about 10 years ago, so a common turn of phrase is "built like a brick shithouse" to indicate high-quality construction. Incidentally, it is also used to describe particularly comely members of the opposite sex by some of the more crass types.

[LKat]

62. movie title?

hi,

what movie is this picture taken from?

thx

[rl6214]

45. Criminals doing criminal things

who would think such a thing?