Is that more or less funny than the results of their actual policy?
And here I thought this wasn’t a thread about gun control. To get back on topic, 17-year-old Spokane girl pulls gun on home intruder on the run from Spokane County deputies:
17 year old repels home invader with her father’s gun. I’d caution against guns under pillows and firing against a fleeing person, but I’ll leave that judgment to the folks on scene.
My money is on that you can’t tell me what their actual policy is without running a web search first.
Kimber, what an awesome name for a girl with a pistol. 
D.C. APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN ‘GOOD REASON’ CCW LAW
Proud to say I am an SAF member, along with the NRA and GOA.
Kids are expensive, just like her namesake. And require a “break in” period before they start working reliably.
It’s rare? The people who wrote the study seriously need to watch some of the videos that are on the Active Self Protection channel on YouTube.
I see a story about gun protection nearly every week.
The thing that impressed me is how quickly a home invasion can occur. You have perhaps thirty seconds to react. You need a gun in at least two locations in the house.
This guy in Georgia stayed calm under very frightening circumstances. One dead bad guy and homeowner won’t be charged.
https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/georgia-homeowner-shoots-kills-wig-wearing-intruder-48834356
Yeah, my sock drawer is not always accessible.
People who do studies are not interested in anecdotes, as those are not data that contributes usefully to studies.
And are studies that involve people of varied lifestyles, geographies, home environments, work environments and experience with firearms pertinent to a person making a decision about his/her own protection from miscreants, wildlife and dangerous dogs? Are studies that ignore all the times that guns are used with no shots fired or no police reports filed valid in any way? How accurate can studies be that rely on people honestly reporting to strangers when they have used a gun? Why should anyone give credence to studies that involve potentially restricting or denying someone their natural (and constitutional) right to self-defense? Particularly when those studies are conducted by or paid for by government or academic entities that are known to be biased.
There’s a reason neither side believes studies that have been conducted. And a reason that studies are irrelevant to both sides.
GAO tries, fails to illegally buy guns online 72 times.
Not sure why the remaining 16 failed to go through, but it appears the so called online buying loophole would take a lot of effort to navigate.
What does “27 refused after the disclosure of the undercover identities’ stated prohibited status.” mean?
That they would have sent them, but the “buyer” disclosed their status, or that the gun seller somehow determined the status?
I cannot tell if it is relying on voluntary disclosures of prohibited status to keep guns away from prohibited people.
Also, your post does not include that the GAO was in fact able to procure both an AR-15 and an Uzi modified for full auto from the dark web.
The other articles I had found were so politically biased one way or the other that they were painful to read. But they stated that the buyer made some statement that they were felons or dishonorably discharged, prompting the seller’s refusal to complete the sale.
Yes, because people buying guns with their heroin on the dark web are so well known for being upstanding citizens who would submit to a universal background check if it were the law. :rolleyes:
Would have been interesting to see if any of the sales had gone through it the buyers did not “admit” to being felons.
I don’t really see that as a very good test of how difficult it is to navigate the loopholes of online buying, criminals are not always known for their honesty.
Right, not sure what your point is. Your original statement was “GAO tries, fails to illegally buy guns online 72 times.”, which was not the whole story, as they also succeeded in illegally buying guns online 28% of the time from the dark web. Not sure why my pointing out your omission earns me a rolleyes.
The abstract isn’t worded very well, from the actual report, of 72 attempts:
-
56 refused the transaction. Of these 56:
-
29 did not want to ship (either due to convenience or because it is illegal, it is not clear).
-
27 were told/hinted that the fake buyer was either a felon or dishonorably discharged, and refused.
-
11 more were scam listings
2 seemed legitimate, but did not respond after payment and disclosure of prohibited status
9 were deemed obvious scams -
The remaining 5 led to the investigator’s accounts being closed, whether due to automated systems or the seller reporting them, it is not clear
They made 7 attempts on the “Dark Web”, 2 of which were successful:
- a legal AR-15, but with an illegally destroyed serial
- an UZI which was claimed to be fully automatic, so illegal. It is not clear if it in fact had FA capabilities. Seems like a tease.
Thank you for wading through that. My takeaway from the report is that honest people on legitimate sites are honest and will obey the regulations already in place. Criminals on criminal sites aren’t going to pay much heed to any law.
In other news, Man carrying concealed pistol stops attack on Utah police officer (audio autoplays):
DGU with no shots fired. What I want to know more about are the feet that were dangling from the donation bin. The story makes it seem like a body, but I think it was the attacker that was trying to steal from the bin.