| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Strapped: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
StanTheMan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Here are some things I thought I would point out: | Here are some things I thought I would point out: | ||
*(1.) At the time that ''[[Strapped]]'' was filmed (1992-93), the | *(1.) At the time that ''[[Strapped]]'' was filmed (1992-93), the NICS instant background check did not exist, so the scene in which the two kids watch their friend buy them the Glocks by simply answering the questions on the 4473 is not unfeasible. | ||
*(2.) The requirement for FFLs to have a store also did not exist in 1993, so the character of Ben using his FFL to purchase guns and have them sent to his house is also not unrealistic, at least for the time. | *(2.) The requirement for FFLs to have a store also did not exist in 1993, so the character of Ben using his FFL to purchase guns and have them sent to his house is also not unrealistic, at least for the time. | ||
*(3.) BUT...''[[Strapped]]'' doesn't seem to understand how serious it is that Ben purchased MAC-10s. Unless he was a Class III FFL, he couldn't do that, and he certainly couldn't sell them on the street without getting caught, because each MAC would have to be registered. | * (3.) The depiction of illegal street prices is fairly realistic. Most illegal weapons sell on the streets for about 300% of their wholesale value (i.e. a $300 TEC-9 is depicted as costing $1,000 on the street, a Glock 17, which sold wholesale for $400 in 1993, is worth $1,200 on the streets, etc.) | ||
*( | *(4.) BUT...''[[Strapped]]'' doesn't seem to understand how serious it is that Ben purchased MAC-10s. Unless he was a Class III FFL, he couldn't do that, and he certainly couldn't sell them on the street without getting caught, because each MAC would have to be registered. According to this movie, he basically just have MAC-10s sent by mail to his house, and then just sell them to gang-bangers and drug dealers in New York City. | ||
*( | *(5.) Ben is arrested for possessing the MAC-10s in the state of New York. Nothing is ever said about him violating FEDERAL law by doing this, and by the guns being unregistered. The ATF agent who visits the police tells them that the most they can get him for is possession, and it's implied that this is not a serious charge. The film makes it appear that an FFL can buy machine guns, sell them on the street, and even if he is discovered, a few years' time for possession is the worst punishment he would face. This is HIGHLY unrealistic. | ||
*(6.) After Diquan and Bamboo get their friend to buy them the Glocks, he tells them that they don't need to come down by bus anymore. He offers to send them the guns by AIR MAIL. To New York City? What? | |||
* (7.) The cops in this movie, including the Detective played by [[Michael Biehn]], are portrayed as inept in a totally ridiculous way that's unbelievable. They don't check to make sure that Ben is an FFL before arresting him, and when they try to arrest Mike, they catch him on tape selling one gun (as opposed to, say, getting video footage of his huge cache of guns that were illegal in New York), which the D.A. tells them is worth only 2 years on possession. Biehn's character is supposed to be assigned to taking down gun runners, and yet he doesn't seem to know a lot of fairly basic things about Federal firearms laws. | |||
If anyone wants to add anything, feel free. I just figured I'd point that out, because I've heard that ever since ''[[Strapped]]'' came out on DVD, it's been shown in some sociology and criminal justice classes at various universities. Aside from the fact that this movie's depiction of U.S. gun laws is now outdated, I seriously worry that impressionable undergraduates are going to see this movie and think that it's possible in the U.S. for an FFL to have machine guns sent to his house so he can sell them on the street and get a wrist-slapping if discovered. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | If anyone wants to add anything, feel free. I just figured I'd point that out, because I've heard that ever since ''[[Strapped]]'' came out on DVD, it's been shown in some sociology and criminal justice classes at various universities. Aside from the fact that this movie's depiction of U.S. gun laws is now outdated, I seriously worry that impressionable undergraduates are going to see this movie and think that it's possible in the U.S. for an FFL to have machine guns sent to his house so he can sell them on the street and get a wrist-slapping if discovered. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
==Shown in universities?== | |||
'''It is an outrage that they show this anti gun propaganda ANYWHERE nowadays.''' Also in California, the street prices for illegal guns are actually LOWER (or they were in the early 1990s) than the retail price. Mostly they were stolen weapons (burglarized by crack heads, etc.) , sold by the bucket load. If I chose to do so, I could have picked up a Glock 17 for $150 on a street corner, don't know if there were any murders attached to it, but that was not the point. If you wanted a cheap gun, you could get it. I guess the economics of black market weapons on the East Coast are different. Also full auto MACS are Class III items, and strictly controlled by the ATF. You don't get a slap on the wrist for a machine gun violation from the Feds. WTF? This film (even the parts that are closer to reality) isn't relevant any more. They might as well imply that we can all mail order guns to our homes (which was the case BEFORE 1968). [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:New York and California are quite a bit different. Guns do usually sell for more in areas where they're harder to get, and as we all know, NYC's gun laws are almost insane. In this movie, guns that were used in homicides are said to have "bodies" attached to them, and they do indeed sell for cheaper prices. What this movie depicts, fairly accurately, is how ''brand-new guns'' are acquired and their pricing. When a gun is new and has "no bodies", its street value increases by 100% of its wholesale price every time it changes hands in New York. But this is not really a big deal to the gang-bangers and drug dealers who buy the weapons; they have plenty of cash floating around and will pay the extra 200% cost if they can get the gun "clean". | |||
:I think the way that this movie fails to properly depict the NFA, however, is a huge problem. I really hope nobody watches it and thinks that an FFL (either now or in 1993) could order MAC-10s by mail and the ATF would be too lazy to get them on a possession charge. This hasn't been possible for the better part of 75 years now. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] | |||
==Ruger Security Six== | |||
'''[moved from main page]'''--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I Don't think that's a Ruger handgun. Look at the frame of the gun and also look closely at the cylinder release latch. Definitely not a Ruger MPM2008. | |||
:::Hmmm, the grips look like a Ruger, though, but I see what you mean. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] | |||
To me it looks like a nickel plated (or hard chrome) Charter Arms undercover 38 from the early 80's. - Dusty78 | |||
==S&W 619 - No way.== | |||
This movie takes place in the early 90s and the gun wasn't even introduced until 2005. It's almost certainly it's more common predecessor, the [[Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_65|Model 65]]. I would have expected an expert like MT2008 to know better, heh. In his defense, he was busy informing us of the downright outrage and insult that this film is to us (I've never watched it, but just the comments I've seen above tell me enough). [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 23:00, 13 July 2011 (CDT) | |||
==S&W Autos== | |||
[[Image:Str-Various-6(2).jpg|thumb|none|600px|Diquan and Bamboo look at the display case in the Georgia gun shop. Visible in this screenshot are (1.) Glock 19, (2.) Smith & Wesson 4506, (3.) Smith & Wesson 6906 (the gun just out of frame on the left appears to be another 6906).]] | |||
I think the IDs on these S&Ws are off - Neither of these guns appear to have frame bulges (which both the 6906 and the older squared-trigger guard 4506s do). The smaller gun is probably a [[Smith & Wesson 3913]], and the other.. hmm, not sure. Looks like a 3rd gen pistol but if it is and isn't a high-cap.. perhaps a 3906 (Stainless [[Smith & Wesson 3904]]) [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:54, 7 December 2014
A brief discussion about this movie's depiction of U.S. gun laws
Here are some things I thought I would point out:
- (1.) At the time that Strapped was filmed (1992-93), the NICS instant background check did not exist, so the scene in which the two kids watch their friend buy them the Glocks by simply answering the questions on the 4473 is not unfeasible.
- (2.) The requirement for FFLs to have a store also did not exist in 1993, so the character of Ben using his FFL to purchase guns and have them sent to his house is also not unrealistic, at least for the time.
- (3.) The depiction of illegal street prices is fairly realistic. Most illegal weapons sell on the streets for about 300% of their wholesale value (i.e. a $300 TEC-9 is depicted as costing $1,000 on the street, a Glock 17, which sold wholesale for $400 in 1993, is worth $1,200 on the streets, etc.)
- (4.) BUT...Strapped doesn't seem to understand how serious it is that Ben purchased MAC-10s. Unless he was a Class III FFL, he couldn't do that, and he certainly couldn't sell them on the street without getting caught, because each MAC would have to be registered. According to this movie, he basically just have MAC-10s sent by mail to his house, and then just sell them to gang-bangers and drug dealers in New York City.
- (5.) Ben is arrested for possessing the MAC-10s in the state of New York. Nothing is ever said about him violating FEDERAL law by doing this, and by the guns being unregistered. The ATF agent who visits the police tells them that the most they can get him for is possession, and it's implied that this is not a serious charge. The film makes it appear that an FFL can buy machine guns, sell them on the street, and even if he is discovered, a few years' time for possession is the worst punishment he would face. This is HIGHLY unrealistic.
- (6.) After Diquan and Bamboo get their friend to buy them the Glocks, he tells them that they don't need to come down by bus anymore. He offers to send them the guns by AIR MAIL. To New York City? What?
- (7.) The cops in this movie, including the Detective played by Michael Biehn, are portrayed as inept in a totally ridiculous way that's unbelievable. They don't check to make sure that Ben is an FFL before arresting him, and when they try to arrest Mike, they catch him on tape selling one gun (as opposed to, say, getting video footage of his huge cache of guns that were illegal in New York), which the D.A. tells them is worth only 2 years on possession. Biehn's character is supposed to be assigned to taking down gun runners, and yet he doesn't seem to know a lot of fairly basic things about Federal firearms laws.
If anyone wants to add anything, feel free. I just figured I'd point that out, because I've heard that ever since Strapped came out on DVD, it's been shown in some sociology and criminal justice classes at various universities. Aside from the fact that this movie's depiction of U.S. gun laws is now outdated, I seriously worry that impressionable undergraduates are going to see this movie and think that it's possible in the U.S. for an FFL to have machine guns sent to his house so he can sell them on the street and get a wrist-slapping if discovered. -MT2008 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Shown in universities?
It is an outrage that they show this anti gun propaganda ANYWHERE nowadays. Also in California, the street prices for illegal guns are actually LOWER (or they were in the early 1990s) than the retail price. Mostly they were stolen weapons (burglarized by crack heads, etc.) , sold by the bucket load. If I chose to do so, I could have picked up a Glock 17 for $150 on a street corner, don't know if there were any murders attached to it, but that was not the point. If you wanted a cheap gun, you could get it. I guess the economics of black market weapons on the East Coast are different. Also full auto MACS are Class III items, and strictly controlled by the ATF. You don't get a slap on the wrist for a machine gun violation from the Feds. WTF? This film (even the parts that are closer to reality) isn't relevant any more. They might as well imply that we can all mail order guns to our homes (which was the case BEFORE 1968). MoviePropMaster2008 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- New York and California are quite a bit different. Guns do usually sell for more in areas where they're harder to get, and as we all know, NYC's gun laws are almost insane. In this movie, guns that were used in homicides are said to have "bodies" attached to them, and they do indeed sell for cheaper prices. What this movie depicts, fairly accurately, is how brand-new guns are acquired and their pricing. When a gun is new and has "no bodies", its street value increases by 100% of its wholesale price every time it changes hands in New York. But this is not really a big deal to the gang-bangers and drug dealers who buy the weapons; they have plenty of cash floating around and will pay the extra 200% cost if they can get the gun "clean".
- I think the way that this movie fails to properly depict the NFA, however, is a huge problem. I really hope nobody watches it and thinks that an FFL (either now or in 1993) could order MAC-10s by mail and the ATF would be too lazy to get them on a possession charge. This hasn't been possible for the better part of 75 years now. -MT2008
Ruger Security Six
[moved from main page]--AdAstra2009 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I Don't think that's a Ruger handgun. Look at the frame of the gun and also look closely at the cylinder release latch. Definitely not a Ruger MPM2008.
- Hmmm, the grips look like a Ruger, though, but I see what you mean. -MT2008
To me it looks like a nickel plated (or hard chrome) Charter Arms undercover 38 from the early 80's. - Dusty78
S&W 619 - No way.
This movie takes place in the early 90s and the gun wasn't even introduced until 2005. It's almost certainly it's more common predecessor, the Model 65. I would have expected an expert like MT2008 to know better, heh. In his defense, he was busy informing us of the downright outrage and insult that this film is to us (I've never watched it, but just the comments I've seen above tell me enough). StanTheMan 23:00, 13 July 2011 (CDT)
S&W Autos
.jpg){kind=link}
I think the IDs on these S&Ws are off - Neither of these guns appear to have frame bulges (which both the 6906 and the older squared-trigger guard 4506s do). The smaller gun is probably a Smith & Wesson 3913, and the other.. hmm, not sure. Looks like a 3rd gen pistol but if it is and isn't a high-cap.. perhaps a 3906 (Stainless Smith & Wesson 3904) StanTheMan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (EST)