Thursday, August 8, 2013
Do You Have a Plan for Date Night?
I just put up a post about some of the things you might want to consider if you are going to go out in public wearing a firearm with your loved ones. It isn't as simple or intuitive as you think. There are some real decisions that need to be made, and some important conversations that should happen. I know everyone wants to take care of your family and significant other, but have you considered what happens to THEM when the SHTF and you are armed?
Monday, August 5, 2013
New Interesting Blog at SouthTexasArmory.com
We have started a new blog associated with our store at SouthTexasArmory. In it we will cover many topics that are specific to the sales of firearms, including reviews and announcements of new rifles, pistols, revolvers and shotguns from some of the major manufacturers. We also will have some general info you might find useful, although it won't be in any way political. It is primarily a vehicle to communicate with our customer base.
We hope you might check it out, and maybe find something useful or interesting.
The store is located here:
We hope you might check it out, and maybe find something useful or interesting.
The store is located here:
Monday, June 10, 2013
Why are guns so expensive now?
I think everyone has noticed that most firearms have been hard to find lately. And I know everyone understand this is thanks to what I call "Banic" buying, meaning people were afraid their favorite guns were going to be restricted or outright banned. The backlog is starting to ease a little, and more suppliers and distributors actually have guns available. There was a time when 4 out of my 9 firearms suppliers had ZERO (none, nada, zilch, zip) handguns available, and the only rifles were oddball calibers of lever action cowboy guns.
But what we are seeing is that the prices have all gone up (or mostly, there are a few that have held the line). Manufacturers are raising their distributor costs, which causes them to raise their dealer price, which causes us dealers to raise our prices. By how much? Well, that actually varies by model even within a certain manufacturer. We do have a free market system, and people are entitled to charge whatever they want for something. That is the law of supply and demand.
But what I wanted to get across here is that it isn't the dealers who are really raking in the dough. In most cases, we are the ones who are getting squeezed on these items because we are the ones that have to walk the fine line between making a buck and keeping customers happy.
A lot of people seem to think the "markup" on firearms is pretty high. I am here to tell you that this IS NOT the case. While every manufacturer and distributor sets their own prices, the difference between MSRP (what the manufacturer says is the "Retail" price) and distributor cost is generally 10% for guns under $1,200 and maybe 15-18% for more expensive guns. That is GENERALLY, and many brands are WELL BELOW that.
Well, you say, 10% is not bad on $1000, right? Making $100 is not bad for 10 minutes work. Except for the fact that that 10% is MSRP to cost, not what we can actually sell it for. When was the last time you paid MSRP for a gun? For some folks, probably NEVER. If I can make 5-6%, that is pretty good.
And that is on a gun that I put out my money on, and HOPE that someone will buy it at some point. It may sit on my shelf for 2 days, or 2 years. All the while that is money not available to buy more guns, pay bills, or anything else.
One other thing people don't stop to consider is credit card fees. The only time I ever have a "Cash Discount" price where I try to get back any credit card fees is if I put something on auction starting at $0.01. In more than 50% of the cases, I end up selling this gun for less than my cost, so I try to stop some of my loses by not eating the credit card fees. Other than that, I count this as a cost of doing business and it is a part of the cost of the gun.
These credit card fees are NOT insignificant. They run anywhere from 1.75 to 3.5% of the purchase amount. It depends on the credit card you use. Why are some fees so high? Well, those are the cards where YOU get your cash back, or airline miles, or whatever perk you have chosen. You didn't think those were really free, did you? Someone is paying those, and that would be the store (and ultimately everyone who buys things, because we have to build a little extra in to our prices to make up for that).
So, now the nitty gritty; how much do I really make on a sale? Let's take a fictional gun (I am actually using a real gun here, just not telling you which one it is). So the Fireball 550 has an MSRP of $1040, and Bud's Gun Shop has it for $914 so I pretty much have to match that price. Well, that gun costs me $827, so my gross margin is $87. But 3% credit card fees takes $27.50 right off that, so I'm down to $59.50. From that I pay for my federal license, my business insurance and all the other advertising and associated costs to do business. If that sale was through Gunbroker, or GunsAmerica or any other online forms, there are fees associated with that as well (from about 1-2.5% usually) Fortunately I am a small dealer and don't have employees or big overhead expenses, because I am working in the 4-6% markup range.
The last thing I will mention is when I do specials on my Facebook page. In these cases, I am literally making no money if you use a credit card. Take in point my SGL31-95 special I just ran. I put it out there at $1240, shipping included. If you use a credit card, that brings what I get down to $1202 after fees. Shipping of a long gun is going to run me around $23-29 depending on where you live. So we are down to $1181-1175 (depending on shipping). This rifle, shipped to me, is costing me $1171. So, you can see that if I did all my figuring properly and no one lives a long way away (like Alaska or Hawaii) or uses a high rewards credit card I am making between $4-10.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying or saying it isn't fair. I do this because the Facebook group are good people, and because I like having good will from potential customers who MIGHT come back and buy something that will make me $40-50 later. If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't.
I just want folks to know that most gun dealers are NOT getting rich at your expense. Most are like me; trying to walk that line between making enough to stay in business and keeping prices low to keep our customers happy.
If you REALLY want to make a dealer like me happy, send us a check. It is the same amount of money to you as putting it on a card, but it really helps on the dealers end. It may mean that at some point I can do an extra Facebook special, or be able to offer a Military Discount to one of our warfighters that I may not be able to do otherwise. At the end of the day, all I really want to do is not lose money and be able to keep selling guns to people at good prices if I can.
But what we are seeing is that the prices have all gone up (or mostly, there are a few that have held the line). Manufacturers are raising their distributor costs, which causes them to raise their dealer price, which causes us dealers to raise our prices. By how much? Well, that actually varies by model even within a certain manufacturer. We do have a free market system, and people are entitled to charge whatever they want for something. That is the law of supply and demand.
But what I wanted to get across here is that it isn't the dealers who are really raking in the dough. In most cases, we are the ones who are getting squeezed on these items because we are the ones that have to walk the fine line between making a buck and keeping customers happy.
A lot of people seem to think the "markup" on firearms is pretty high. I am here to tell you that this IS NOT the case. While every manufacturer and distributor sets their own prices, the difference between MSRP (what the manufacturer says is the "Retail" price) and distributor cost is generally 10% for guns under $1,200 and maybe 15-18% for more expensive guns. That is GENERALLY, and many brands are WELL BELOW that.
Well, you say, 10% is not bad on $1000, right? Making $100 is not bad for 10 minutes work. Except for the fact that that 10% is MSRP to cost, not what we can actually sell it for. When was the last time you paid MSRP for a gun? For some folks, probably NEVER. If I can make 5-6%, that is pretty good.
And that is on a gun that I put out my money on, and HOPE that someone will buy it at some point. It may sit on my shelf for 2 days, or 2 years. All the while that is money not available to buy more guns, pay bills, or anything else.
One other thing people don't stop to consider is credit card fees. The only time I ever have a "Cash Discount" price where I try to get back any credit card fees is if I put something on auction starting at $0.01. In more than 50% of the cases, I end up selling this gun for less than my cost, so I try to stop some of my loses by not eating the credit card fees. Other than that, I count this as a cost of doing business and it is a part of the cost of the gun.
These credit card fees are NOT insignificant. They run anywhere from 1.75 to 3.5% of the purchase amount. It depends on the credit card you use. Why are some fees so high? Well, those are the cards where YOU get your cash back, or airline miles, or whatever perk you have chosen. You didn't think those were really free, did you? Someone is paying those, and that would be the store (and ultimately everyone who buys things, because we have to build a little extra in to our prices to make up for that).
So, now the nitty gritty; how much do I really make on a sale? Let's take a fictional gun (I am actually using a real gun here, just not telling you which one it is). So the Fireball 550 has an MSRP of $1040, and Bud's Gun Shop has it for $914 so I pretty much have to match that price. Well, that gun costs me $827, so my gross margin is $87. But 3% credit card fees takes $27.50 right off that, so I'm down to $59.50. From that I pay for my federal license, my business insurance and all the other advertising and associated costs to do business. If that sale was through Gunbroker, or GunsAmerica or any other online forms, there are fees associated with that as well (from about 1-2.5% usually) Fortunately I am a small dealer and don't have employees or big overhead expenses, because I am working in the 4-6% markup range.
The last thing I will mention is when I do specials on my Facebook page. In these cases, I am literally making no money if you use a credit card. Take in point my SGL31-95 special I just ran. I put it out there at $1240, shipping included. If you use a credit card, that brings what I get down to $1202 after fees. Shipping of a long gun is going to run me around $23-29 depending on where you live. So we are down to $1181-1175 (depending on shipping). This rifle, shipped to me, is costing me $1171. So, you can see that if I did all my figuring properly and no one lives a long way away (like Alaska or Hawaii) or uses a high rewards credit card I am making between $4-10.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying or saying it isn't fair. I do this because the Facebook group are good people, and because I like having good will from potential customers who MIGHT come back and buy something that will make me $40-50 later. If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't.
I just want folks to know that most gun dealers are NOT getting rich at your expense. Most are like me; trying to walk that line between making enough to stay in business and keeping prices low to keep our customers happy.
If you REALLY want to make a dealer like me happy, send us a check. It is the same amount of money to you as putting it on a card, but it really helps on the dealers end. It may mean that at some point I can do an extra Facebook special, or be able to offer a Military Discount to one of our warfighters that I may not be able to do otherwise. At the end of the day, all I really want to do is not lose money and be able to keep selling guns to people at good prices if I can.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Rate of Criminal Conviction of Concealed Handgun License Holders in Texas
Proof: CHL holders in Texas are NOT the 'Bad Guys'
If you listen to some, anyone who feels the need to carry a dangerous firearm in public is paranoid, are going to cause more harm than good and the streets will run red with blood from our John McClain inspired delusions ("Die Hard" reference for those that don't get it). But a study by the Texas Department of Public Safety (our state law enforcement group) shows during 2011 CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders were responsible for less than 0.19% of the major crimes committed. This includes gun crimes, child abuse, kidnapping, sexual assaults and the like. Out of 63,679 convictions, only 120 were legal CHL holders. And of those, less than half actual involved the use of a gun.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf
Let's go 1 step further; population of Texas in 2011 was 25.9 million, about 17 million of which are over 21. TxDPS reports show there were 518,625 active CHL holders that year, or about 3% of the population. But that 3% accounted for less that 0.19% of the major crimes. Sounds like a pretty safe group of people to trust to me.
I am not cast doubt on any group, but I wonder how these statistics stack up against other groups, including police and other law enforcement. Because I think the numbers would show that CHL holders are as responsible, or maybe even more responsible, than this group that we hold in such rightfully high esteem.
And I bet that the same holds true for every state that keeps these types of statistics. By definition we are the law abiding citizens, because we jump through the hoops and follow all the rules and actually GET the piece of paper instead of being a criminal that skirts the laws.
If you listen to some, anyone who feels the need to carry a dangerous firearm in public is paranoid, are going to cause more harm than good and the streets will run red with blood from our John McClain inspired delusions ("Die Hard" reference for those that don't get it). But a study by the Texas Department of Public Safety (our state law enforcement group) shows during 2011 CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders were responsible for less than 0.19% of the major crimes committed. This includes gun crimes, child abuse, kidnapping, sexual assaults and the like. Out of 63,679 convictions, only 120 were legal CHL holders. And of those, less than half actual involved the use of a gun.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf
Let's go 1 step further; population of Texas in 2011 was 25.9 million, about 17 million of which are over 21. TxDPS reports show there were 518,625 active CHL holders that year, or about 3% of the population. But that 3% accounted for less that 0.19% of the major crimes. Sounds like a pretty safe group of people to trust to me.
I am not cast doubt on any group, but I wonder how these statistics stack up against other groups, including police and other law enforcement. Because I think the numbers would show that CHL holders are as responsible, or maybe even more responsible, than this group that we hold in such rightfully high esteem.
And I bet that the same holds true for every state that keeps these types of statistics. By definition we are the law abiding citizens, because we jump through the hoops and follow all the rules and actually GET the piece of paper instead of being a criminal that skirts the laws.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
For or Against, let's STOP the Political Theater that fuels the current Gun Control Debate
Neither side gets a pass on this. Both Pro and Con sides are using emotional arguments unrelated to the actual problem to try to sway people to one side or the other on this very important topic. If there was ever a topic that needed level head debate, this is it. But neither side is letting that happen because they are too afraid to give an inch to do what is really right for everyone.On the Pro Control side, let's look at the Chief Executive. He made his way up to Newtown again to use it as a backdrop for his agenda (which he is counting on being part of his legacy). He had all those people who lost loved ones around him during his speech, and then loaded them on Air Force One to fly back to DC and make the rounds of Capital Hill in advance of the coming debates. They will bring their sad pictures and truly unbearably sad story to legislators in an attempt to sway votes.
Why is this reprehensible? Because they are being used as emotional red herrings by the Pro Control crowd. Because NOT A SINGLE PROVISION of the current expected Gun Control bill would have done anything to even minimize the tragedy. If the complete bill had passed unanimously months or years prior to Sandy Hook, the outcome would have been EXACTLY THE SAME. So not a single one of these people are victims of us not passing this "common sense" legislation earlier, because it does not address any of the problems attendant in this case. Maybe an assault weapons ban would have kept the rifle out of play, BUT THAT ISN'T INCLUDED in any of the bills (and evidence remains out if the rifle was ever actually used or to what extent). Mental Health records MAY have kept his mother from being able to have any weapons in her home, BUT THAT ISN'T INCLUDED in any of the bills. And so on and so on.
I am tired of people holding up pictures of sad eyed children cut down at the very beginning of their lives because of a madman's actions, and trying to use that emotional appeal to push forward an agenda and laws that would do NOTHING to fix the problems that caused that loss. Those children (and adults, we often forget the brave adults who gave their lives as well) deserve our deepest sympathy and regrets, but using them as a pawn in this way actually demeans their memory.
But, as I said neither side gets a pass. Just as repulsive is the jingoistic rattling of the NRA and the GOA about 2nd Amendment Rights. They tell us NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT to deny us those rights as enumerated. And anyone who even tries to tread on them is a traitor, moron, Communist, (insert favorite epithet here)..
Yes, there is a right to bear arms, and it is in the Bill of Rights and is the law of the land. But it is a basic tenet of human existence that no one has the right to do something that endangers others. It has been held up in courts literally hundreds or thousands of times, for everything from freedom of speech to human rights violations. Everyone has heard the analogy of "Screaming :FIRE" in a crowded theater'. While doing so might be your right under the 1st Amendment, the fact that the hysterical mob would probably trample to death dozens of people means you can not do that.
Let's bring it back to the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully no one thinks that it is OK to allow violent criminals unfettered access to guns. Or the violent mental patient. Or under-aged children without supervision who don't understand the consequences. So everyone agrees that SOME restraints to the 2nd Amendment are required.
Now comes the hard part; which restraints? That isn't up to me, but what I am saying is let's have a meaningful discussion of this without name calling, bullying and histrionics. Just because someone else believes in different ideas does not make them evil, or traitorous. It makes them different. RIGHT or WRONG is always right or wrong, but it is not always so easily quantified in things that have this much passion around them.
So please, this topic already has a high enough emotional quotient just by itself that we don't need to bring in martyred children or patriotic blinders to get our juices flowing. If the law being floated is about magazine restrictions, then bring up the pictures of the people who would have been saved by having smaller magazines (good luck proving that). And Gun Rights people, get over the fact that the hallowed 2nd Amendment does in fact NOT APPLY to everyone in every situation. Some people are just not able to own firearms for the good of everyone around them.
And let's start taking it seriously that what we need to do is determine HOW we are going to identify those people, and how we are going to ensure they don't get guns. Maybe it is background checks (I personally don't believe so, but it is a solution some have offered). Maybe it is extremely painful mandatory sentences for violent acts with a weapon. Maybe it is a return to real parenting and teaching people to be accountable for their actions instead of blaming someone else that they can then hunt down. Most likely, it is a little bit of all of tehse, and many more things.
I'm a gun owner, a CHL holder and a licensed gun dealer. And I am appalled at the number of people who die each year/month/day/hour from firearms. And not just the violent crime, but suicides as well (which many on the Gun Rights side forget to talk about). And the people whose lives are changed by that loss, or a non-fatal wounding, or even property damage caused by irresponsible gun use. So I believe this country does have a responsibility to do something. I don't believe laws, or restrictions and constraints are the way to do it, but something has to change.
Let's be the ones to lead the charge to a better future. Let's be the people we want to see in that future. Let's argue about the right things, for the right reasons.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Guns and Mental Health - Priority No 1?
Like most people, I have been hearing all the talk about mental health and gun violence. Intuitively it makes sense, and several of the larger losses of life lately have been at the hands of ill people. But an article I just read makes me wonder if that is really what we should be talking about exclusively.
In this article, author Paul Mountjoy discusses the actual break-down of the number of people who are a threat to the general populous, and it turns out the mentally ill with guns are not at the top of the list. Yes, as mentioned above there have been several tragedies invoking these people, and those are horrific and inexcusable. But let's liken this to people dying in crashes. Plane crashes always make the news because of the loss in a single event, but the number of people killed on the highways far outstrips the number in planes crashes. The car crashes just don't all make the news.
The fact of the matter is very few people suffering from mental illness own guns, and even fewer actual use them to commit crimes. A Columbia University study places the number at 4% of crime is caused by mental illness. It is much more likely for someone suffering from mental illness to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator.
The mental disorders most associated with gun related violence against others are schizophrenia, Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), and untreated Bipolar Disorder (BPD). Mental health statistics indicate that in the United States, there are approximately 1,300,000 individuals who fall into those categories (of which a very small number will ever commit a gun crime).
By comparison, DoJ numbers place the number of people currently incarcerated is 2.3 million, and another 5 million are on parole. Every year 2.22 million people are convicted of violent crimes, of which 1.2 million use guns. 67% of homicides use guns, but less than 1% use "assault rifles". And somewhere around 25% of the people jailed or on probation/parole committed drug offense.
So, let's summarize. The current media frenzy talks about mental illness and assault weapons. But the mentally ill people most likely to commit a violent crime make up just 4% of society, a small percentage of these will be involved in any crime and even then they are more likely to be the victim than the perp. And the dreaded assault weapons are used in 1% of all homicides.
But on the other hand there are 7.5 million people (5 times as many as there are mentally ill) currently convicted of crimes, 1/3 of those committed VIOLENT crimes already and 25% of the total are known to be involved with drugs.
What's the answer? Well, let's keep guns out of the hands of all these people, mentally ill or criminal. Since none of them have signs around their necks saying "I will commit a violent crime" or "I will not commit a crime", we have to play it safe.
But let's not dislocate our shoulders by patting ourselves on the back because we got this "Guns and Mental Illness" problem under control. It's a problem, yes. But let's remember that a violent crime is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be committed by a repeat violent offender than a mentally ill person. So we should be putting much more emphasis on making sure these convicted criminals do not get guns by whatever means we can.
I would bet every one of them knows they will not be able to pass a background check, so they aren't likely to try to buy one in any scenario where a check will be done. They buy them out of the trunks of cars on the streets, or steal them from relatives. Or are just GIVEN the gun by someone else they know. THESE are the places we need to come down hard on in enforcement.
In this article, author Paul Mountjoy discusses the actual break-down of the number of people who are a threat to the general populous, and it turns out the mentally ill with guns are not at the top of the list. Yes, as mentioned above there have been several tragedies invoking these people, and those are horrific and inexcusable. But let's liken this to people dying in crashes. Plane crashes always make the news because of the loss in a single event, but the number of people killed on the highways far outstrips the number in planes crashes. The car crashes just don't all make the news.
The fact of the matter is very few people suffering from mental illness own guns, and even fewer actual use them to commit crimes. A Columbia University study places the number at 4% of crime is caused by mental illness. It is much more likely for someone suffering from mental illness to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator.
The mental disorders most associated with gun related violence against others are schizophrenia, Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), and untreated Bipolar Disorder (BPD). Mental health statistics indicate that in the United States, there are approximately 1,300,000 individuals who fall into those categories (of which a very small number will ever commit a gun crime).
By comparison, DoJ numbers place the number of people currently incarcerated is 2.3 million, and another 5 million are on parole. Every year 2.22 million people are convicted of violent crimes, of which 1.2 million use guns. 67% of homicides use guns, but less than 1% use "assault rifles". And somewhere around 25% of the people jailed or on probation/parole committed drug offense.
So, let's summarize. The current media frenzy talks about mental illness and assault weapons. But the mentally ill people most likely to commit a violent crime make up just 4% of society, a small percentage of these will be involved in any crime and even then they are more likely to be the victim than the perp. And the dreaded assault weapons are used in 1% of all homicides.
But on the other hand there are 7.5 million people (5 times as many as there are mentally ill) currently convicted of crimes, 1/3 of those committed VIOLENT crimes already and 25% of the total are known to be involved with drugs.
What's the answer? Well, let's keep guns out of the hands of all these people, mentally ill or criminal. Since none of them have signs around their necks saying "I will commit a violent crime" or "I will not commit a crime", we have to play it safe.
But let's not dislocate our shoulders by patting ourselves on the back because we got this "Guns and Mental Illness" problem under control. It's a problem, yes. But let's remember that a violent crime is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be committed by a repeat violent offender than a mentally ill person. So we should be putting much more emphasis on making sure these convicted criminals do not get guns by whatever means we can.
I would bet every one of them knows they will not be able to pass a background check, so they aren't likely to try to buy one in any scenario where a check will be done. They buy them out of the trunks of cars on the streets, or steal them from relatives. Or are just GIVEN the gun by someone else they know. THESE are the places we need to come down hard on in enforcement.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Just keep passing the same laws - It worked the first time, didn't it?
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted and passed a bill that does absolutely nothing to make anyone more secure, and whose only purpose is to make penalties for already illegal activity so high it will make ordinary gun owners think twice about buying or selling firearms. The bill was approved in an 11-7 vote largely along party lines. Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, was the only GOP lawmaker to vote yes.
Excerpt for The Hill:
So, exactly what part of this law actually helps PREVENT gun violence? Doesn't it seem kind of counter-productive to raise penalties on laws that the FBI chooses not to strictly enforce in the first place? In 2010 the NICS did almost 14.5 million background checks. Of those, 72,659 were denied (about 1/2 of 1%). Of those, 62 were prosecuted and 13 convicted. So even though lying on the 4473 form is a federal offense, our Justice Department managed to get a .01% (1/100th of a percent) conviction rate on crimes that were identified by the FBI themselves.
Hold your legislators responsible. Stop allowing them to pass the buck on these shoddy bills. I know everyone wants less gun violence, and no politician wants to back legislation that could actually be politically painful. But let's all agree to stop letting them think they are fooling us by claiming to be making things better by passing useless bills.
 |
| Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa) |
The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act sponsored by Leahy would stiffen penalties for trafficking, increasing jail terms in some cases up to 25 years. It would cover sellers and purchasers involved in illegal transactions and would lower the threshold for determining the criminal intent of the parties involved.
Grassley agreed to back the measure after Leahy agreed to an amendment to prohibit the Department of Justice (DOJ) from conducting gun-walking operations such as “Fast and Furious,” an operation that may have resulted in the death of a U.S. border patrol agent.
Under the Grassley amendment, the DOJ could engage in similar sting operations only if the attorney general, deputy attorney general or head of the criminal division personally approves them after determining sufficient safeguards are in place.
The bill also strengthens the law prohibiting material false statements in connection with purchasing a firearm and increases penalties for purchasing a gun with intent to transfer it to someone involved in a violent crime or drug trafficking.
It would also outlaw illegal purchasers of firearms from smuggling weapons out of the country.
So, exactly what part of this law actually helps PREVENT gun violence? Doesn't it seem kind of counter-productive to raise penalties on laws that the FBI chooses not to strictly enforce in the first place? In 2010 the NICS did almost 14.5 million background checks. Of those, 72,659 were denied (about 1/2 of 1%). Of those, 62 were prosecuted and 13 convicted. So even though lying on the 4473 form is a federal offense, our Justice Department managed to get a .01% (1/100th of a percent) conviction rate on crimes that were identified by the FBI themselves.
Hold your legislators responsible. Stop allowing them to pass the buck on these shoddy bills. I know everyone wants less gun violence, and no politician wants to back legislation that could actually be politically painful. But let's all agree to stop letting them think they are fooling us by claiming to be making things better by passing useless bills.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)