Most Virginians say they want to close the so-called gun show loophole that permits some gun sales without criminal background checks, and they dislike the notion of someone carrying a concealed firearm into a restaurant that serves alcohol, according to a new poll.
Not only that, but the percentages were extremely significant. About background checks, almost 81% said change the law. On restricting guns in restaurants and bars it was almost 70%.
What's most fascinating about these numbers, even taking them with the proverbial grain of salt, is that the pro-gun crowd has been telling us something totally different. Imagine the truth is most people agree with the gun control folks, even in Virginia. I guess most people are concerned about gun crime and realize that it's absolute nonsense to think more guns in more places would address that problem.
Sebastian covered it already. His idea is that the questions were worded in an unfair way to elicit the responses desired by the pollsters. Do you think that's true? Could using words which Sebastian says carry negative connotations like, "loophole" and "unlicensed" account for a whopping 81%? I don't think so. I think the poll demonstrates that Virginia is more progressive and reasonable than many of us thought.
What's your opinion? Do you find this a surprise? Please feel free to leave a comment.
Luling gun dealer linked to Mexican drug cartel
ReplyDelete04:57 PM CDT on Friday, October 16, 2009
From www.kvue.com
Thursday Alfred Dwight Watkins was sentenced to ten months in federal prison for dealing firearms without a license. After his prison sentence he will be under supervised release for three additional years.
Last August Watkins admitted to selling firearms at Austin and San Antonio gun shows even though his license had expired in 2003. According to authorities, Watkins admitted that in order to 'flip' more firearms he mislead customers by telling them they didn't need paperwork for the transactions. He also admitted that he sold a $600 firearm to a person who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Well, as someone who does create surveys (or is often responsible for helping to rephrase them in non-guiding ways) these aren't nearly as bad questions as I've seen. However, I also don't put a lot of faith in such surveys as there are too many factors influencing them.
ReplyDeleteHow were the questions literally asked? I know the results shown, but how many pollsters asked 'Do you think people should be allowed to carry guns in bars?'?
One example I've used here before is to insert some additional implication into a question, such as:
Should only criminals be carrying guns in bars, or should federally background-checked persons who have obtained a permit be allowed?
Blitz a location with a lot of information or misinformation (e.g. was this area inundated with ads regarding these topics?) then conduct a survey, you'll see a lot of impact from those ads. Online (yes, this was a phone interview, but this is an example of skewed poll results), I've seen 'polls' get posted on gun-aficionado boards to encourage pro-gun owners to hit the poll, resulting in dramatically artificial results.
Further, a one question poll cannot assess the deeper implications of an issue, and odds are that most people don't think that far...but that's democracy for you. If such questions made it on a ballot and accurately reflected the peoples' opinion, that's their right. I just don't like it when a politician decides he knows better and does it for them.
Sorry for repeating what I have posted before, but it applies more than ever to this thread:
ReplyDeleteWhile there are many gunowners who oppose more regulation on rights grounds, there are also many gunowers like me who are willing to compromise on a system that would enable and require private sellers to access the background check system at gun shows. The main obtacle to such compromise has been the intrangience and extremism of gun control advocates. For example: I would consider legislation giving private sellers at gun shows access to the current instant background check system, but gun control advocates want to ABOLISH the instant background check system and replace it with a mandatory waiting period system of 5 days or more, which is unacceptable to gunowners. Also, in some of those states which HAVE required checks at gun shows, gun control advocates have CONTINUED to attack gun showns there by attempting to ban them in the most popular (or sometimes only) locations. This recently occurred in California, and is obviously unacceptable to gunowners. Moderate gunowners are open to reasonable compromise: Background checks for sales by private sellers at gun shows IF gun control advocates agree to NOT abolish the instant check system and NOT continue to attack gun shows. But gun control advocates have NOT been open to reasonable compromise.
Laci - That doesn't have anything to do with the "gun show loophole" gunshows, or private transfers.
ReplyDeleteYour story is one of a licensed FFL who let his license lapse and continued to sell firearms illegally.
So what exactly was the point of your comment?
The Toledo Blade's lead editorial today:
ReplyDeleteThe gun show loophole
No such thing as a "private dealer" muddy, unless by "private dealer" you mean "citizen who wants to sell a gun.
ReplyDeletePlease, one of you please tell me what the "gun show loophole" is.
I want to see if you folks have any clue what you're talking about.
What loop hole exists inside a gunshow that does not exist outside a gunshow?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that non-FFL's are prohibited from accessing the NICS, right?
in some of those states which HAVE required checks at gun shows, gun control advocates have CONTINUED to attack gun showns.
ReplyDeleteYup, that's because the goal isn't "public safety" or making it harder for criminals to get guns. Their goal is to eliminate gun shows altogether.
That's why once the anti-gun crowd gets their "reasonable" laws they don't stop there.
"Private sellers are not required by law to conduct background checks - which can be completed almost instantaneously in most cases"
ReplyDeletePrivate sellers couldn't run a background check even if they wanted to as they are barred from using NICS.
You knew that, right?
You know, glancing at this headline again, I realized what bugs me most about the 'Gun Show Loophole'...it's just plain inaccurate and dishonest! The real issue is to eliminate private party transactions of firearms without requiring a background check.
ReplyDeleteWhy do they insist on only associating it with gun shows? Is it to make is seem as though it will ONLY affect gun shows? Why not just point out all the issues of ALL private party transactions...which I'd bet happen far more often in places OTHER than gun shows.
Everyone here knows what is meant by the "gun show loophole." To suggest that they don't is a cheap trick which serves nothing but to derail the discussion. No one denies that it's a bad choice of words to describe what it does.
ReplyDeleteRequiring background checks on all private transfers, something that I know is not possible now, is one of the main goals of the gun control movement, as far as I can see.
Requiring background checks on all private transfers, something that I know is not possible now, is one of the main goals of the gun control movement, as far as I can see.
ReplyDeleteWhy MikeB? What's the purpose of banning all private sales?
"Everyone here knows what is meant by the "gun show loophole."
ReplyDeleteThen why does the Brady Campaign routinely suggest that laws that apply outside of a gun show, do not apply inside?
You do know that prohibited purchasers aren't even allowed to set foot inside a gunshow, right?
Yes, everyone HERE knows it, but it's the general usage of it. And notice, it's the term used rather than the intent that I don't like.
ReplyDeleteI dislike dishonesty and intentional obfuscation. Both sides of the gun control argument need to have open discussions about their intentions.
Quit calling it the 'gun show loophole' and call it 'required background checks for non-dealer transactions' or something. I'd like both sides to be up front about what it is they really want.
Listening to a shooting podcast recently, the host wanted to debate a gun control expert guest...but the host kept pretending not to understand the points being made (e.g. the claim that 'a model of weapon was more lethal than others' while the host kept insisting, 'it's either lethal or it isn't'. Well Mr. Host, given the choice of getting hit with a baseball or a car, which would you prefer? Either could kill you, but I think most would agree that the car is more lethal.). It was just a stupid attempt to ignore the issue the guest wanted to discuss so that the host could run through his litany of pro-gun rhetoric. It became useless since it forced both sides to devolve into spouting their party lines without ever actually DEBATING anything.
What I'd give for a moderated discussion of the topics where things could be cleared up and actually addressed rather than devolving into the 'he used an assault weapon'/'there's no such thing as an assault weapon since anti-gunners made it up' and back and forth on semantics while ignoring the elephant in the room.
Hmm, sorry. That rant got away from me.
"Everyone here knows what is meant by the "gun show loophole." To suggest that they don't is a cheap trick which serves nothing but to derail the discussion. No one denies that it's a bad choice of words to describe what it does. "
ReplyDeleteTranslation...
We know that the language is deceptive, that's why we use it.
MikeB has admitted that he gets all of his gun research info from the Brady Campaign.
ReplyDeleteAnd here we have Paul Helmke, presideant of said Brady Campaign stating that gun manufacturers are now making guns with orange tips to make them look like toys.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=brady+campaign&search_type=&aq=f
Both patently false and easily refuted.
Here's a challenge to you MikeB. Show me one single solitary instance of a gun manufacturer making a firearm with an orange tip and if you can...I will film myself cutting one of my handguns in half with a blow torch and post that video on youtube, then post a direct link here, at your site, to that video.
If you are unable or unwilling to provide your readers with a single solitary example, ask yourself why?
Checkmate.
LOL...
ReplyDeleteMikeB is such an expert on all aspects of gun control that he thinks the eddie eagle program is about teaching kids how to shoot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEBrb_wRYc
Ya can't make this stuff up, folks.
Any antis out there who wish to defend MikeB's assertion that the eddie eagle program is about teaching kids how to shoot?
Checkmate.
kaveman, What are you talking about?
ReplyDelete"MikeB's assertion that the eddie eagle program is about teaching kids how to shoot"
I've already been schooled on that one, maybe you missed it. I think it was Weer'd on another thread. I admitted I didn't know what Eddie Eagle was all about and now I do.
You also said, "MikeB has admitted that he gets all of his gun research info from the Brady Campaign."
When I said that I was making an attempt at humor. You know very well that I read a lot of things other than Brady.
And finally, about the deceptive language of the phrase "gun show loophole," I don't know if that's why people use it. It's not why I use it. Everyone in these discussions knows exactly what we're talking about. It's just that some of you guys like to derail the thread with all this nonsense about the improper wording of the expression or questions about whether we really know what it means or accusations that it's a tricky anti-gun conspiracy to malign you good gun owners. Nonsense!
"I've already been schooled on that one"
ReplyDeleteAnd the reason you thought eddie eagle was about teaching kids to shoot is because the Brady Campiagn told you that it was.
Instead of doing your own research, you blindly believed them, just like you blindly believe everything they say.
Like Paul Helmke stating that gun manufacturers are now making real guns with orange tips to make them look like toys?
Do you believe that or is Paul Helmke a lying sack of filth?
My main point about harping on the language thingie is that if the antis continue to call it the "gun show loop hole" then, if more states pass legislation in an attempt to close the "gun show loop hole" then what they will end up with is exactly what Oregon got with the passage of Measure 5.
ReplyDeleteBackground checks are required for all purchases INSIDE A GUNSHOW.
Outside the gunshow, I can buy all the guns I want without a background check.
I would rather see a more correct discription so that voters are fully informed as to what the proposed law would do.
Here's a factoid you may find amusing. Under Oregon's Measure 5 law, my home is classified as a gunshow since I own more than 10 firearms.
It would be illegal for me to sell a gun in my living room without performing a background check on the buyer.
However, If the buyer and I walk 30 meters out into the street, on public property, I can sell the gun with no questions asked.
This is why new gun control laws meet such fierce opposition from us.
We actually read the proposed legislation, know exactly what it will and will not do and see how ridiculous they are.
We read this stuff because we HAVE TO in order to comply with the new law.
The antis never have to actually read any gun laws because they don't own guns.
What's in the new law doesn't affect them.
If "everyone knows that what's being discussed" goes beyond gun shows, and extends to all private sales, why is it that the two federal bills dealing with the "loophole" H.R. 2324 and S. 843, apply only to gun shows?
ReplyDeleteThe ONLY explanation that makes any sense is that those pushing these bills know they don't have a chance in hell if they go after ALL private sales, so they're going after private sales at gun shows first. If they get that, after there is no noticeable reduction in violence inflicted with guns (and there WON'T be any such reduction--as they well know), then they can say, "Well, closing the gun show loophole was a good first step, but we have to do more," and THAT's when they'll go after all private sales.
This, I submit, was the plan all along.
It would be illegal for me to sell a gun in my living room without performing a background check on the buyer.
ReplyDeleteKaveman - The truly ironic thing is that it would be illegal NOT to perform the check, yet you cannot use the NICS system to perform the check.
Thus one law would be preventing you from doing what was required by another gun control law. Such is the clusterfuck of gun laws in this country.
Zorro, I think you may be right. That would definitely explain it.
ReplyDelete"This, I submit, was the plan all along."
kaveman said, "And the reason you thought eddie eagle was about teaching kids to shoot is because the Brady Campiagn told you that it was.
ReplyDeleteInstead of doing your own research, you blindly believed them, just like you blindly believe everything they say."
Wrong and wrong, my friend. I jumped to my own wrong conclusions about the Eddie Eagle program until Weer's straightened me out. You know how I tend to do that. And I don't blindly believe everything the Brady bunch says.