Bloomberg anti-gun lies dealt another blow

The BBQ Pit
1

After many outright false claims about guns and illegal purchases made through legitimate dealers the Bloomberg claims were dealt a serious blow by the GAO.

At the behest of 3 staunchly anti-gun members of congress (Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii) the GAO conducted an undercover sting operation to expose illegal gun sales.

What they found was no legitimate gun dealer on the surface web was willing to take the bait, 56 - 0, and on the dark web they only got two of seven attempts.

Fox News story
NRA story
Official GAO report

Hopefully people will finally realize that nothing that comes out of the mouths of any Bloomberg puppet is even remotely factual or accurate.

2

So the Trump administration says everything is fine.

Boy, that’s reassuring.

Who’s Bloomberg?

3

Former Mayor of New York Bloomberg.

4

Line from the NRA “news” story:

:rolleyes:

5

Sorry the first 2 links are not sources to be trusted in the least. I’ll look at the GAO report though.

6

gun grabber extraordinaire

7

So can you point to where Bloomberg or “his puppets” made their lie? The report does seem to support the numbers in your Op but I’m not aware of what the gotcha is.

8

And only six posts in, too. Label them early and label them often, and you “win” every time, right?

9

Next outrage: GAO special agents try to buy weed illegally, but strike out, proving there’s no such thing as drug dealers.

10

I don’t see the point. You’ve, very conveniently, decided that anything you don’t agree with is not to be trusted.

11

Would you happen to have sources that aren’t half news and half editorial-ones without schoolyard type name calling, perhaps?

12

Did you read the Fox or the NRA story? I’ll have to assume the answer is no as both of them provide a link to “Point, Click, Fire: An investigation of illegal online gun sales,” the Bloomberg funded study.

13

It’s a label I try to reserve for truly deserving cases. Bloomberg is a truly deserving case.

14

Allow me:

15

Did you read the quote from the NRA piece that I quoted in post #4? I shows that

  1. It’s pretty fucking obvious I read the story, and
  2. It’s pretty fucking obvious that it is more of an editorial than an objective news piece.

Now I ask again: do you have links that don’t go to editorial pieces?

16

And yet you clearly haven’t fucking read the Bloomberg funded study.

17

Let me add that the whole reason for this GAO study was the claims made by the Bloomberg study. That’s where this all starts.

18

Fox News is demonstrably a biased source with a documented history of being less than half truth. They’re also the network whose people routinely claim that they’re “Entertainers” and not “Journalists” so as to dodge any requirements to be truthful. (and they were prevented from creating Fox News in Canada because they could not in any way be considered an actual “News” organization.)

The NRA? Don’t make me laugh. I was an NRA member for more than 20 years but they’re not even on the same planet as anything labeled ‘unbiased’.

19

I am reading through it now. I was just pointing out that you seem to have a problem differentiating between an objective news story and an editorial…the same problem Skywatcher seems to have. I don’t care if the link tells me what I want to hear or not, but it sure would be nice…for a change…if it was an actual objective news piece.

20

If you fell that way that’s fine. How about you read the actual Bloomberg study then the GAO report and get back to me.

Would that be ok with you?