ABC report

Rifleman1776

New member
I saw a report last night (7/16/13) on ABC news. I won't call it "news" because it was not news, it was a scripted and staged event designed to be strongly anti-gun. In the highly dramatized report a woman made two gun purchases. One an AK47, the other a Barrett .50 cal. rifle. Much was made of the 'military weapon' AK. It was never stated if this was a semi-auto or otherwise. Before the Barrett purchase scenes of .50 cal. machine guns in use in war were shown.
The sales transactions, obviously staged, took place in public parking lots. Odd but not illegal but made to look illict.
In my opinion, ABC, once again confirmed, to me, the network is completely uncredible.
I'll stop before launching into a rant the mods will shut down.
Yes, I'm :mad:
 
There have been quite a few of these, but without a link to an article or video, discussion of the specific event is difficult.

Generally, these things are done to prove the fiction of the "gun show loophole." The question I've never seen answered is this: who provided the money for those purchases? If the guy buying the guns in the parking lot is using funds provided by someone else, then it's a classic straw purchase.
 
This one already looks doomed to turn into more of a generalized condemnation of the media than a "firearms-related" discussion.

Accordingly, closed. However, if someone finds a link to the story and can frame it in a "firearms-related" way, feel free to open a new thread.

Cordially,
Spats

ETA: Oops, cross-posted with Tom.
 
I noticed in the story they made a big deal of the cost of the AK. When they were discussing the .50 they noted how "easy it would be for a criminal" to get one, but never mentioned the sale price. If I understood the story the deal included 11 boxes of ammunition. At the quoted cost of $15 per round that alone would come to $1980.

I'm not too worried about your typical mope going online and buying a .50.
 
OK, now that we have a link to the original story, we're back open. Heed Spats' warning, though.

It sounds like "NIck" the seller was someone who recognized an uneducated buyer and named his price accordingly. I suppose Nick had a few leftovers that lost value when the panic died down, and National Geographic just gave him an outlet for getting rid of them.

The question remains: did Von Zeller buy the guns with her own money, or with money given to her by the magazine? The difference is critical. If the money was fronted by someone else, then she has committed a felony. If not, she just paid far more than market value.
 
The question remains: did Von Zeller buy the guns with her own money, or with money given to her by the magazine? The difference is critical. If the money was fronted by someone else, then she has committed a felony. If not, she just paid far more than market value.

Inquiring minds wants to know!

ABC and National Geographic Channel are baiting out the uneducated to spew more uneducated BS.

Now myself if a women came to me wants to buy a 50cal my spidie sense would go crazy.
Same with an AK.

These are non "A" typical guns most female shooter look to buy so I do suspect it was all staged.
 
The fact that ABC will not present the news fairly is depressing.

The overwhelming majority of the comments point out the misconceptions and half truths of the story. I think this means most people understand what is going on here.

This cheers me up a bit.
 
The anti-gun crowd doesn't care how many rapes are prevented or how many murders are stopped by the civilian use of legal firearms.

The only "facts" the anti-gun crowd are interested in are their own regardless of how accurate or deceptive they are.

And speaking of National Geographic, I wonder how many hunters and shooters subscribe to their magazine and watch their TV shows? I'm disappointed that N.G. has fallen into the crevasse of gun control.
 
I caught the last 3/4 of the program on National Geographic last night. Their attempts to purchase "assault rifles" began with them "going undercover" in licensed gun shops and asking to buy without background checks or by having the customer talk on their cell phone while negotiating with the clerks to make it obvious they were attempting a straw purchase. Just as you'd expect they were repeatedly denied and were given a few lectures on the law by gun shop owners. This was all accompanied by very ominous music and many statements by the main reporter about how nervous she was and how dangerous it was going under cover, and how anything could go wrong at any moment and she could find herself in great danger! :rolleyes: They also opined that they didn't get away with it only because they had tried to purchase too many guns at once, because obviously the gun shop owners would gladly risk their FFLs by breaking the law to sell only one gun.

At the last gunshop they visited, the sales clerk gave them just the sound bites they were looking for, as they asked him about the possibility of purchasing the same guns they were looking at in his store at a gun show instead. The clerk, obviously trying to make a sale, went on and on about how you have no way of knowing at a gun show who might be a criminal or whether the guns may be stolen. :mad:

Next they moved to a gun show, where they purchased several handguns (including the Most Powerful Handgun in the World!) via private sales without a background check. On their way out, they stopped by some officers who were onhand to run the serial numbers to check if any of their guns were stolen (they weren't), and the officers cheerfully provided more sound bites about the risks of purchasing at a gun show.

From there they moved on to a segment in Mexico, showing photographs of violent crime scenes and tables full of "military-style" weapons seized from drug cartels. They had a whole segment about a multi-million dollar tunnel constructed under the border where "illegal drugs flowed north, and money and weapons flowed south".

Finally, to show their theory of where these guns flowing south came from, they moved on to the segment highlighted in the video linked above, where they searched for used guns on the Internet and met up with the buyers for face-to-face sales without a background check. They did a good job of making it look scary how easy it was for someone to buy guns from a complete stranger with no background check, but I hope that any discerning viewers would look at how over-the-top they went on the first half of the show and wonder what they weren't showing at the end.

I personally do find it a somewhat concerning that a normally prohibited person could use a private sale to get around this prohibition, but this show never discussed the most important points of this issue: first, that this overwhelmingly is not how criminals acquire guns, and second, how can this be stopped without placing an undue burden on legal gun owners without criminalizing the legal transfer of firearms between citizens that actually know each other before the transfer, as is the case in the majority of private transfers?
 
Thanks Sanity for providing a good summary of the show.

Their agenda is clear and obvious. The only thing that cheers me a little is the Ted Nugent quote about how it doesn't bother him when people say stupid things---that way we know who the stupid people are.
 
The Military History Channel had a show called the Works which had a science type young man explain firearms. It was very positive and interesting. He did make a few mistakes like misunderstanding NICS but that was a pleasant surprise.

He went to Gunsite and seemed to have a blast.
 
The question remains: did Von Zeller buy the guns with her own money, or with money given to her by the magazine? The difference is critical. If the money was fronted by someone else, then she has committed a felony. If not, she just paid far more than market value.

I don't follow. If she retains the guns, then why would it be a felon?
 
The question remains: did Von Zeller buy the guns with her own money, or with money given to her by the magazine? The difference is critical. If the money was fronted by someone else, then she has committed a felony.

If a supervisor or the magazine gave her the money to buy the guns, that makes it a straw purchase.

I understood your words the first time. I just don't see the justification. How is it that it is a straw purchase if she retains the gun? There is no lying on the federal form, regardless of where the money came from if she is the one who fills out the form and is the one who keeps the gun. That would be a legal purchase as near as I can tell.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-dont-lie-campaign.html

To be a straw purchase, as I understand it, you have to purchase the gun for somebody else, especially if they are prohibited from owning it. Maybe you can clarify?
 
She's not the actual buyer of the firearm if she's been fronted the money by someone else.

No, if she's given the money to buy the guns for herself, then she was gifted the money and that's not a straw purchase. If she purchased the guns for National Geographic, then she is a straw purchaser.
 
I would think it wasn't mere coincidence that the NG cameras were there when she made the purchase. Therefore the guns were purchased for the show. What Tom is saying makes perfect sense. Unless of course you assume she had intended to purchase these guns for her self before deciding to document it.
 
Back
Top