It makes perfect sense that a market which is completely unregulated cannot provide statistics. Nevertheless, gun-rights fanatics have frequently trotted out pseudo-statistics showing how few crime guns come from gun shows."We can't determine the precise extent of the problem because unlicensed dealers are not required to keep records," Lippstone (Andy Lippstone, deputy legal counsel for Markell) said, adding that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says 30 percent of illegally trafficked guns are connected in some way to gun shows.
The NRA response is typically hysterical, yet like talking-points in the policy division of any organization, you're sure to hear these repeated all over the pro-gun world.
"The true intent" theory is one of the hallmarks of NRA rhetoric. In some cases I suppose the authors of this nonsense actually believe their own claims. But more often than not, I suppose they know better and in the most unscrupulous way they're attempting to fill the simple minds of their members with plausible lies. It's dirty and it's immoral and all the while dangerous people have an easier time buying guns because of it.In a letter sent out before Wednesday's committee meeting, the NRA urged supporters to contact lawmakers and urge them to defeat the bill.
"The true intent of this legislation is to move towards an ultimate ban on all private sales — even those between family and friends — regardless of where they occur," the letter reads. " ... Targeting your Second Amendment rights because politicians won't crack down on criminals is wrong and cannot be tolerated."
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Nevertheless, gun-rights fanatics have frequently trotted out pseudo-statistics showing how few crime guns come from gun shows."
ReplyDeleteSo the FBI releases "pseudo-statistics"?
So the FBI releases "pseudo-statistics"?
ReplyDeleteJune 2, 2011 1:00 PM
Can't say until you provide them.
MikeB: “'The true intent' theory is one of the hallmarks of NRA rhetoric. In some cases I suppose the authors of this nonsense actually believe their own claims.”
ReplyDeleteWell, considering there are two proposed bills in congress (one in the house, and one in the senate) which do ban all private sales, I think it is pretty safe to say what their “true intent” is. They are not exactly trying to hide it.
My understanding is not to ban all private sales, but to make sure they comply with a gun check.
ReplyDeleteDog gone, private sellers are forbidden from using the background check system. We can’t use it even if we wanted to. Rather than changing that, both bills specifically prohibit unlicensed sellers from making transactions.
ReplyDeleteThen that should probably be changed, but until we have a working NCIS data base, it doesn't really matter does it?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with expanding who can do a background check, so long as we make compliance with the NCIS mandatory not 'if you feel like it'.
In the interim, if that makes private sales more difficult, say having to go through an intermediary who is licensed, I can live with that. I think we can do better than that; at the very least Delaware should require buyer and seller ID, and private party access to a data base maintained by Delaware with the same info from Delaware that the NCIS would maintain from Delaware.
"Dog gone, private sellers are forbidden from using the background check system. We can’t use it even if we wanted to. Rather than changing that, both bills specifically prohibit unlicensed sellers from making transactions.
ReplyDeleteJune 2, 2011 8:03 PM"
So, the law that's on the books can't be changed? Oh, dear me; and I thought you guys were the "winners". I see, it was a spellcheck glitch. It should have read, "whiners".
demo,
ReplyDeleteThe FBI says that fewer than 2% of all crime guns were purchased at a gun show by a criminal.
Democommie, the law can be changed. And that is what gun control should be trying to do rather that whine about gunshows and try and ban private sales.
ReplyDeleteTS, You misrepresented the entire thing badly - the others called you out on it. The "true intent" is to require background checks not to ban anything.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of it is the background check for a private seller can be provided by an FFL guy. I suppose the minor expense and hassle of going all the way to the nearest FFL holder is a major violation of your so-called god-given rights, huh?
At gun shows it would be easy as pie. The place is half filled with FFL guys. In your garage or at your kitchen table, I suppose it would result in a bit of inconvenience. You'd have to drive down to the nearest gun shop with your buyer, of course it would have to be during business hours, and you could conclude the deal there.
Why are you so against this, really?
Mike, it is you that is horribly misrepresenting what the NRA is saying. What do you think they mean when they say private sales will be banned? Do you think they mean that once a person procures a gun that they will never be allowed to part ways with it? Of course that is not what they mean. What they mean is that two law-abiding adults will not be able to make a transaction without use of a licensed dealer. And that is EXACTLY what the two proposed bills do.
ReplyDeleteWhat is really frustrating is that on many occasions in the past, I have talked you into at the very least ambivalence towards letting private sellers use the NICS. But every time it comes up again, you are right back to wanting to force all sellers to use FFLs. I have told you many times what my issues are with it. For one, my city has run every FFL out of town. It is not a huge deal because two towns over has an FFL in reasonable distance. But what happens when they run their FFL out of town too? As is, he charges twice as much for transfers as FFLs in other parts of the state because of a lack of competition. I once tripled the cost of a gun in shipping/transfer fees, and I ended up sending it 400 miles away to pick it up- even though I bought it close to where I live.
Aside for any of these “inconveniences” and costs, my most important point is that an open NICS is just plain better for assuring the most amount of sales are to legal buyers. It is better at your stated goals- it is better gun control! It is also more convenient for us- making it a win-win. And I think that is what your problem is, because there is a small amount of “win” on our side.
TS, I don't know why you're so hung up on private people being able to use the NICS. To me it's a minor difference if you had it your way or if all private sales had to use an FFL guy as a type of intermediary. The main point is each gun has to belong to one person and that person has to be responsible for his property. No giving them to your brother-in-law, no selling them at the local gun show, no more irresponsible gun ownership. That's the point.
ReplyDelete