The 'legally purchased' lie. An anti-gun tactic.

There's a big headline floating around the mainstream news websites. 'ATF reports all guns in San Bernardino purchased legally.'

The VERY SAME ARTICLE says that the ATF says that TWO of the four guns were purchased by someone under investigation, which makes it very clear that they weren't all purchased by the same person. Then it says that the 4473 forms and NICS check were performed 4 years ago. 4 YEARS AGO.

There's also this little bit of information under a CBS article with that same headline: 'Meredith Davis of the ATF says investigators are now working to make a connection to the last legal purchaser.'

The LAST legal purchaser. So they actually don't know HOW the San Bernardino shooters actually got the weapons (or if they do, aren't sharing it due to ongoing investigation), but they KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THE SHOOTERS DID NOT, IN FACT PURCHASE THE GUNS THEMSELVES. So no, the shooters did NOT in go out and legally purchase their guns from a gun store, like the headline is clearly meant to imply.

And by this logic that they're applying, they can report that ANY gun that has EVER been purchased or transferred through a retail store with a form 4473 was 'legally purchased', even if it was not purchased by the person who actually committed a crime with them.

The Sandy Hook shooter's murder weapons were 'legally purchased', despite the shooter having to STEAL them from the person who ACTUALLY legally purchased them.

Even a gun illegally converted to full auto, like used by the North Hollywood Bank Robbers was 'legally purchased' at some point before being converted under this logic.

My plan of action to counter this tactic is to simply take the time to educate and inform people who are reading articles like this and citing the claim that the guns involved were purchased legally. The media's definition of a legal purchase is simply completely removed from the real world, and it's not that hard to call them on it.

 

The real question is why they think it would make any difference to the 14 murdered people.
All that means and proves that everything the ATF et al are doing will not stop a criminal obtaining a firearm. Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald and Booth all obtained their firearms legally.
Where or how the firearms were obtained means nothing. Chasing after the original buyer is a waste of resources but it makes the public think the assorted agencies are doing something.

 

It's a Red Herring. Someone could "legally purchase" a Khyber Pass full auto AK47 at a Bazaar in Pakistan and smuggle it into the country.

 

It's a Red Herring that doesn't matter.

Both sides do it to support their argument the same way, which to my mathematical mind, proves both of them to be non-sequiturs.

Both sides selectively describe all weapons involved in shootings as 'legally owned' as it suits a shifting argument;

Anti-Gun - The only reason gang-bangers have illegal guns in our cities, is because they steal them from lawful owners in adjacent areas that haven't made ownership illegal; spread the laws so there are fewer lawful guns, and the flow will stop. --OR-- See, look, this person is charged with unlawful possession in the commission of their crime, so they'll get a harsher punishment as will those who were complicit; the laws work and we need more of them.

Pro-Gun - The gang-bangers will just steal them from the folks who do manage to make it through the legal gauntlet; Dillinger stole from the Natl Guard! It's pointless. --OR-- Guns used in most shootings are already illegally-possessed, and the guns are therefore outside any type of legal control or oversight. It's pointless.

Classic symptom of a circular argument (it's very much like the common-use/militia-use paradox erected by the idiotic Miller decision in conjunction with Heller's cop-outs)

1) Laws are passed which describe illegal weapons
2) Weapons are used in crimes (which by itself often makes the status of said weapon illegal in the hands of its wielder)
3) Illegality of weapon is used to promote or detract from proposed laws
4) Laws are passed or repealed which describe illegal weapons

It only makes sense if you're blind enough to think the passage of a law has any bearing on whether any weapon anywhere can or will be used in a crime, considering the criminal was willing to break the law describing the crime they needed a weapon for. Whether pro-gun or anti-gun. The only preventative impact the law has ever had, is on the actions of those willing to follow it, so the effects of gun laws can only manifest in the actions of the victims of criminals. The only options available to a victim of violent crime are to fight back or die. "Getting away" or "surviving" are not choices, they are outcomes.

And that is why it is foolish for us to focus on the legal status of weapons (seeing as we seek to disband all legal classifications of weapons, ultimately), and even dumber for the anti's to harp on the legality or illegality, seeing as they only seek to promote laws eliminating or making redundant the two, respectively.

TCB

 

Lots of terms being thrown around by the media these days.
How many times have you heard "mass shooting" lately? Seems to me they are trying to direct and focus the public much the way they are with this "legally purchased".
Is the public really that ignorant that they don't see it for what it is?
I've heard some very conservative commentators today who are ranting about this huge amount of ammo that this couple had and how they can't believe they were able to amass it without someone noticing.
I don't even want to speculate on members here who have far larger stockpiles of ammo and considering they only had 4 guns I think it's safe to say 95% of us have more firearms.
If this becomes some sort of litmus test we are in deep trouble.