I'm not sure, but that customer with the weird facial hair looks an awful lot like an investigative reporter I've seen hanging out with the MAIG. Right before the picture was snapped he said, "So, you don't require no background check do ya, cause I don't think I can pass one?" The seller responded in terse Tulsa style, "No sirree, 'round here, we don't care 'bout that bullshit.""They love to come here early to find the bargains," show manager Joe Wanenmacher said.
Wanenmacher said recent attendance has been in the 35,000 to 40,000 range for the biannual event, which traces its roots to 1955.
Wanenmacher said when he took over the show in 1968 there were about 200 exhibitor tables. On Saturday, there were more than 4,100 tables featuring exhibitors from all over the world displaying firearms and other items.
Wanenmacher said a study about four years ago revealed the spring and fall editions of the show pump a total of about $16 million into the local economy. He said 83 percent of the spectators come from places other than Tulsa.
What do you think? Is the Tulsa Arms Show just good clean fun for gun collectors or is it the kind of place the unfit and unqualified and bad-intentioned can come to get what they want?
Please leave a comment.
If I had a background check problem and wanted a weapon or 2 weapons or 322 weapons, I would head right to this show and use the famous Gun Show Loophole to purchase whatever I wanted. WWWEEEHHHHAAAAWWWWWWW, gonna answer the question "Who shot the sherriff?"
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know where you got the idea that this customer said anything about a background check, since you provide no link and no citation. I also have to wonder why a potential criminal is buying what looks to be a Walther P 38 to use in his crimes, if that's what he's doing.
ReplyDeleteI've been to the Wanenmacher gun show many times. It is by far the most professionally run gun show that I have ever been too. This isn't the type of gun show where you will run into a private collector selling off his collection at a table. Every single gun that I have purchased there, or have witnessed my friends purchase was accompanied with a background check.
ReplyDeleteWhy is a criminal buying a Walther P38? Because he can, clearly.
ReplyDeleteThis obviously happens all the time. We are seeing thousands of guns go into the hands of criminals from criminals. We need to end the Gun Show loophole.
I've bought lots of guns without a background check. Built them from roughly machined parts too. This is in MA as well, just to piss you off.
ReplyDeletePOed Lib,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you'd like to back up your claim with some evidence?
Greg, now do't do that to POed Lib. Don't ask her for proof of what we all know needs no proof.
ReplyDeleteMy original title was
ReplyDeleteThe biggest little (whorehouse) gun show in the world.
What gun show loophole? Every gun I've purchased required a background check. Even private parties are starting to run back ground checks before selling a weapon to a stranger. What we have here are people that don't know what they're talking about spewing their ignorance.
ReplyDeleteckerst, Would you feel better if we called it the "private-sale loophole?" Would you be able to join in the discussion then without pretending to not know what the fuck we're saying?
ReplyDeleteckerst doesn't know what he's talking about. Private sellers don't have access to NICS.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you're not incarcerated should be all the background check one needs.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteDon't ask for proof of what we all know needs no proof? ?Como que huh? The claim was that criminals obviously are buying thousands of guns from other criminals at gun shows. That's not obvious to me. But then, I don't just accept what an activist says without question. I know, that's counterrevolutionary. . .
"Would you feel better if we called it the "private-sale loophole?"
ReplyDeleteI'd feel better if we were at least honest about it and called it what it is.
The fact that you're not incarcerated should be all the background check one needs.
ReplyDeleteThat would disregard disqualifying someone who should not have a weapon because of mental illness.
That would leave out any number of people who are not incarcerated, but have active warrants out for their arrest for previous crimes.
That would ignore people who are out on bail for appeals after convictions for crimes.
That wouldn't catch people who have criminal restraining orders against them for stalking or domestic violence.
That wouldn't catch people who are out of jail on work release.
That would in fact provide a loophole so large you could fly a 747 through it.
It is a stupid criteria for someone to be eligible to buy a gun.
The fact that you're not incarcerated should be all the background check one needs.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's one of the most ignorant comments I've ever read!
It assumes that because one is out on the street, they have no disqualifying factors.
That would mean someone who is out on bail, parole, or probation could buy a firearm since they are not currently incarcerated. In fact, there is the possibility that someone could raise the bail for a seriously violent offence and buy a weapon.
I can think of loads of disqualifying reasons, yet someone could still be walking the street.
Remember that the Shooters at Virginia Tech and Tucson (among others) legally bought their weapons before commiting mass murder.
Then you'd agree there should also be background checks for kitchen knives and hammers. That would've prevented the recent event in Weymouth MA, right?
ReplyDeleteWhat about propane tanks? There shound be a NICS check for those too. Why guns but not propane tanks? And zomg cars are deadly too!
Anonymous, I don't have a problem with denying other weapons to dangerous people who are mentally ill, or criminals.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you try to conflate non-weapon items which are involved in occasional accidents with weapons.
The two are not the same, nor should they be conflated. It is deliberate intellectual dishonesty on your part.
If you want to engage in genuine discussion, serious reasoning, fine - but this crap of yours disqualifies you from that. So either shape up or shut up; you are wasting time and bandwith with this line of faux reasoning.
On what planet do you live, where an economist's consideration of substitution effects in the context of public policy is intellectually dishonest?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
Then you'd agree there should also be background checks for kitchen knives and hammers. That would've prevented the recent event in Weymouth MA, right?
What about propane tanks? There shound be a NICS check for those too. Why guns but not propane tanks? And zomg cars are deadly too!
and
"On what planet do you live, where an economist's consideration of substitution effects in the context of public policy is intellectually dishonest?"
No economist worthy of the name would conflate such dissimilar things as weapons with non-weapons, particularly where there is no justification statistically for the comparison. You are making a false analogy, or maybe you simply do not correctly understand substitution effect.
Substitution effect is THIS:
"The substitution effect is the effect observed with changes in relative price of goods. This effect basically affects the movement along the curve."
So unless you are suggesting that someone would buy a kitchen knife, hammer, or automobile as economically interchangeable items, that is another crap argument on your part that only displays your own ignorance of the terms by your incorrect use of them.
Kind of like what Greg does with poli-sci terms.
On what planet do you live, where an economist's consideration of substitution effects in the context of public policy is intellectually dishonest?
ReplyDelete?????????
First off, this you are using a false analogy rather than the substitution effect.
secondly, firearms allow for emotional distance in killing, whereas other objects require personal interaction with the victim and the possibility that the aggressor could be harmed.
For example, a kitchen knife, a defender could disarm an attacker using the kitchen knife, or at least the attacker could face some form of defensive action or struggle.
Additionally, the car analogy is an incredibly poor one since very few intentional homicides occur through the use of automobile.
In fact, if one looks at the methods used for homicide, the firearm is at the top of the list in the US. Other methods fall precipitously from the use of firearms.
So, trying to argue that there is any form of substitution effect demonstrate a lack of understanding of that concept.
Being a prohibited person makes guns more expensive than other lethal weapons. Hammers and knives are lethal weapons. Think about it for a few minutes before you respond.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone and Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteBut what you are failing to recognize is that there are many dangerous products that are widely available without much regulation. The gas pumps say that only a licensed driver can purchase gasoline, but I've never been checked when I buy it. Ammonium nitrate is still for sale, as far as I know, despite being used in the Oklahoma City bombing. Sociopaths will find a way to cause outrages, and you can't regulate them out of existence.
Greg Camp wrote:
ReplyDeleteBut what you are failing to recognize is that there are many dangerous products that are widely available without much regulation.
1. THAT doesn't equate to substitution effect in economics, not remotely.
2. As Laci and I have already correctly pointed out, equating these products is a false analogy. I would argue to you that the products listed are not commonly used in a dangerous manner, and that unlike a firearm, such use would be contrary to the intended purpose of the item. You can trip and fall in the bath tub, but that doesn't make a bathtub the hands-down weapon of choice in homicides. You can fall down a flight of stairs, but it does not equate to a firearm as a weapon.
I will leave it to Laci, since he has the degree in Logic to explain to you at greater length just how thoroughly and in what respects this clearly demonstrates you, Greg, do NOT understand how to engage in critical thinking.
Anonymous wrote"
ReplyDeleteBeing a prohibited person makes guns more expensive than other lethal weapons. Hammers and knives are lethal weapons. Think about it for a few minutes before you respond.
Why don't YOU think about it for a few minutes? Because clearly, you haven't thought about it nearly long enough.
1. Guns sold illegally are often in fact quite cheap, sold for less than a commercial outlet would sell them precisely because they are usually stolen items when sold to a prohibited person. Stolen items being fenced or sold usually go for a fraction of their value. So NO, you're wrong.
2. Hammers and knives are NOT weapons, nor do they have the lethality of a firearm, particularly at a distance. They are not statistically used in anything like an equivalent number of homicides or suicides, and the use would be one of the facets in which they would have to be similar to be interchangeable for the purpose of using substitution effect economic theory. You prove the aphorism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - you clearly don't know much here, including how to recognize the logical requirements of a valid analogy.
The items you mentioned are used as the tools they were intended to be and only in the fevered imaginations of gun loons do they equate as weapons. It is not their primary function, unlike firearms, and they are not nearly as effective as weapons compared to their effectiveness as tools.
When you show me how your hand gun works interchangeably with your hammer to pound nails or cut bread, you will have a valid analogy. I could kill you by dropping an electrical appliance into your bathwater while you're in the tub, killing you, but it would still not equate in any logical comparison or be a valid analogy. I could kill you with a pencil as well, but that doesn't make a No.2 lead pencil (actually graphite) equivalent to a Glock or a machete or a vegetable peeler.
Geeze, whatever you lot paid for your educations, you should demand your money back.
The black market cash price of a gun is generally twice its blue-book value. If you want a citation, let's take a walk to the Old Colony housing projects in Southie and we'll ask around.
ReplyDeleteFurther, from the perspective of the prohibited purchaser, the cost of a gun is a function of the high cash price, plus the product of the probability and penalty of getting caught.
Cheap guns for prohibited purchasers? I think not.
Laci would agree with you; one of those cases where we don't perfectly agree. But I suppose it depends on what black market is involved.
ReplyDeleteWhile appearing to be contradictory, I suspect both situations exist - cheap illegal guns, and expensive illegal guns, depending on the source, and the guns, and that it is not 'only / or'.
There are articles like this, which was from 2008:
"The shooting underscored a persistent problem of juveniles using guns in crime: The weapons are simple to get and cheap. They are for sale not just on street corners in Kent but throughout the region.
"People can get stolen guns for 50, 100 bucks," said Gabe Morales, a local gang expert who works with police and at-risk youths. "It's easier to get a gun than it is to get a car."
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/For-teens-illegal-guns-easy-to-get-on-streets-1283875.php#ixzz1doUAJbJr
"The black market cash price of a gun is generally twice its blue-book value. If you want a citation, let's take a walk to the Old Colony housing projects in Southie and we'll ask around."
ReplyDeleteOh, so it IS harder to get gunz in MA then it it elsewhere. Thanks for admitting that you and the rest of the gunzloonz are fullashit on the "When gunz are outlawed..." canard.
What a tool.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYour argument is always that guns are dangerous. Yes, they are. So are many other things in this world. If you're interested in making us safe, you ought to be against all dangers, especially since several of them cause more deaths and injuries than firearms do.
I was not addressing the substitution effect. That's a separate matter for you to debate with the person who brought that up.
I'd say it's about as hard to illegally buy a gun here as it is to buy cocaine. There's lots of criminals on the streets because our judges don't put people in jail cuz dey wuz jussa bout to turn dey lives around.
ReplyDeleteThere's lots of criminals on the streets because our judges don't put people in jail cuz dey wuz jussa bout to turn dey lives around.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, we have the largest number of people behind bars in the whole world (land of the free? or land of the incarcerated?), both per capita and total numbers. It costs us a bloody fortune.
And if you look at the law which began the criminalizing of marijuana, in 1937, it was not somethig that was really done because of a problem with pot. Read up about the role of William Randal Hearst in that little bit of crooked legislation.
If we decriminalized or at least reduced how we penalize non-violent, non-gun violent pot crimes, we'd reduce the power of the drug cartels in Mexico, and here, and our public costs.
But we won't do that, because by making so many things felonies that were never felonies before 1974, so many people have been disenfranchised that it has changed the outcome of elections.
Guess in which direction.
"There's lots of criminals on the streets because our judges don't put people in jail cuz dey wuz jussa bout to turn dey lives around.
ReplyDeleteNovember 16, 2011 3:07 AM"
Isn't this the sort of racism that someone was complaining about earlier.
You have no answer for my comment, obviously. You're in Southie? So, take a walk over to the Moakley with your CCW, let me know how that works out for you.
Did you carry your cannon over to TD Banknorth for the Bruins game last week?
You keep telling us you do that, but we only have your word on it--vastly insufficient proof.
I'm not convinced that disqualified people necessarily have to pay more for the product. Isn't supply the main factor in determining price?
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteIsn't there a parallel here with illegal drugs? Marijuana can be grown easily, so I can't see that the price would be as high if the product were legal. When a buyer can't go into a standard retail store to buy the product, it's easier for the seller to jack up the price.
"Isn't there a parallel here with illegal drugs? Marijuana can be grown easily, so I can't see that the price would be as high if the product were legal. When a buyer can't go into a standard retail store to buy the product, it's easier for the seller to jack up the price."
ReplyDeleteYeah, sure, those two things are exact analogs. Oh, except for the part where the gummint has billions of dollars and thousands of people working at all levels, including in public schools, to educate kids about the dangers of firearms. Yeah, I can just see some fresh-face young cop lecturing kids on the danger of getting hooked on machine gunz and RPG's. I can see it now, "Yes, Susie, that little pink .22 rimfire that looks JUST LIKE a miniature M16 is cute and makes the coolest popping sounds, but you get started with that and the next thing you know you're turnin' tricks at your friend Jimmy's treehouse so's you can buy another hundred rounds of Hornady 9mm Luger 115 gr Critical Defense® .".
Yep, that's exactly what would make the War on Gunz compare to the War on Drugz.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteWhereas I want to legalize marijuana, decriminalize other drugs, and offer realistic treatment programs for addicts. Notice how ineffective all of these metaphorical wars have been?