More proof that universal background checks won't work

[M-Quigley]

Some anti gun types push universal background checks, and claim to want to close the so called "gun show" loophole, but the reality is many purchases that end up in the hands of criminals go through a background check, via a straw purchase. This is supposed to be illegal of course, but apparently the people participating don't care. In this cast a guy who can pass the background check is basically selling guns to a straw purchaser for a $25-$30 markup?
Although they might actually take this particular case seriously because who the victim was, background checks and straw purchase issues in general will probably remain a sad joke. IMO if there are anti gun advocates who really want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they should be more concerned with actually getting current law enforced instead of proposing new laws that won't work either.

https://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/co ... hJsphjCGO/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Del Rio was part of a DEA task force that was serving a warrant on Ruskin Road in Dayton on Nov. 4 when he was shot twice in the head and critically injured. He died three days later.

Three firearms were found during the investigation into the shooting at the Ruskin Road home, including two pistols with extended magazines, loaded with armor-piercing ammunition and equipped with laser sights. One of the FNS-7 firearms was located on the basement floor, and the other was on the hip of one of the men in the residence, according to court documents.

The third firearm, an AR-style weapon, was found in the storage area underneath the basement staircase.

Not that it matters in how the detective died anyway, but the part about "armor piercing" ammunition might not be true. Both WHIO and the Dayton Daily news reported on a previous case and claimed some ammunition for the 5.7 pistol was "armor piercing" when in fact it was not. Armor piercing ammunition does exist (restricted to LE and the military) but not all 5.7 ammo will penetrate the body armor commonly used today.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... ody-armor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Brian D.]

Not that it matters in how the detective died anyway, but the part about "armor piercing" ammunition might not be true. Both WHIO and the Dayton Daily news reported on a previous case and claimed some ammunition for the 5.7 pistol was "armor piercing" when in fact it was not. Armor piercing ammunition does exist (restricted to LE and the military) but not all 5.7 ammo will penetrate the body armor commonly used today.

I suppose it's possible that the miscreants acquired some of the truly "armor piercing" ammunition though. Both LE and the military have their stuff stolen* on a regular basis and it often goes unreported.

*That could also mean illegally sold by the folks who are supposed to control access to it.

And I'd like to reiterate what you said about the kind of ammunition used to kill the police officer not being relevant, since he was shot twice in the head.

[wendellcrain]

Since the article talks about a FNS-7, are you sure they are just making a typo for a FN-57? It could be a FNS-9 or FNS-40?

[M-Quigley]

Since the article talks about a FNS-7, are you sure they are just making a typo for a FN-57? It could be a FNS-9 or FNS-40?

It's certainly possible that it's a typo, but I've noticed a trend in news reporting that whenever a pistol that is chambered in 5.7 is mentioned it seems like every time the words "armor piercing ammunition" are also used, like all 5.7 ammo is automatically "armor piercing." And in every case I've had the chance to find out more information, the reporting turns out to be wrong about the ammunition every time. This isn't usually the case with handguns chambered for 9 or 40 cal.
This isn't always the fault of the news media however, as some in LE tell the news media certain ammunition is "armor piercing" even though it is the civilian ammo.

[M-Quigley]

Not that it matters in how the detective died anyway, but the part about "armor piercing" ammunition might not be true. Both WHIO and the Dayton Daily news reported on a previous case and claimed some ammunition for the 5.7 pistol was "armor piercing" when in fact it was not. Armor piercing ammunition does exist (restricted to LE and the military) but not all 5.7 ammo will penetrate the body armor commonly used today.

I suppose it's possible that the miscreants acquired some of the truly "armor piercing" ammunition though. Both LE and the military have their stuff stolen* on a regular basis and it often goes unreported.

*That could also mean illegally sold by the folks who are supposed to control access to it.

And I'd like to reiterate what you said about the kind of ammunition used to kill the police officer not being relevant, since he was shot twice in the head.

There are a lot of facts that are or should be irrelevant, but not to the people pushing various gun control measures, including proposals for additonal restrictions on ammunition.

[Mr. Glock]

And you know how many people who attempt to buy a gun and fail the background check due being a prohibited person are charged and prosecuted for that crime? Single digit percentage. Enforce the current law to make a difference.

And, in the FBI’s own report, illegal gun show purchases by criminals is also low single digits. Why? Plenty of community guns already out there and easily rented by criminals. Why take the chance of getting caught trying to buy one when it is so easy to rent/buy on the black market?

Ah, facts and logic. But “we aren’t doing something” to the “I feel” crowd.