A recent poll
from Mayors against Illegal Guns found that 74 percent of NRA gun
owners and 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners support mandatory criminal
background checks in order to purchase a firearm. However, even with
this public support, there remain loopholes that allow 40% of gun
purchases to occur without a background check, with no questions asked.
You know what the most common pro-gun response to this suggestion is? "There is no such thing as the gun show loophole."
They figure the more time they can make us waste arguing about the terminology, the longer this blatant offense against common sense will continue. Maybe they're right. Progress certainly is slow in spite of the overwhelming agreement even among gun owners.
What's your opinion? Is it a genius tactic to argue for years about whether it should be called the "gun show loophole" or something else?
I prefer "private sale loophole," but since we all know what we're talking about, I object to all the obfuscation and diversion.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
There is no gun show loophole.
ReplyDelete"I prefer "private sale loophole," but since we all know what we're talking about, I object to all the obfuscation and diversion."
ReplyDeleteTotal BS there, mikeb.
The Brady Bunch claims that Oregon has closed the "gun show loop hole" and yet I can buy all the guns I want in private sales without a background check.
What's the BS? Some states have outlawed private sales at gun shows, which in my opinion is a useless gesture. And that's not what's commonly known as the "gun show loophole."
DeleteWhat? The "gun show loophole" is the fact that private sellers can offer their guns to buyers without a background check. That's what your side calls the loophole, even though it's the law as it was written. What are you talking about?
DeleteIt's only a loophole to someone who doesn't like the current law. Private sales are legal in most states. What is more, if private sales are made illegal, there will be a vast black market in guns that the government knows nothing about. Some will sell guns and buy guns illegally just to assert their independence. But gun control is dead for now. Your side will have to elect supporters across all parts of government and get judges appointed before you can win.
ReplyDeleteDon't expect to have an easy time with that.
damn law abiding citizens, selling firearms in accordance with the law, that should be illegal
DeleteDamn right, it should be illegal to sell a gun to anyone without a background check.
DeleteHave you learned nothing from Prohibition? You could make private sales illegal, but they would still go on. We'd have people buying and selling just for the thrill of it. Gangs would ship in guns along with drugs. The ATF would face gun battles when trying to arrest citizens. In the end, there'd be layers of new government bureaucracy, lots of dead, and we'd go right back to where we are now. Just like Prohibition.
DeleteDamn right, it should be illegal to sell a gun to anyone without a background check.
DeleteThen what? According to BJS ~40% criminals get their firearms from illegal sources, we know they're not going to do a NICS. Another ~40% of criminals get their firearms from friends,family or straw buyers. We know that the straw buyers aren't going to do a NICS, do you really think the friends and family that are complicit with the crime are going to do a NICS?
Universal background checks will only affect the non criminal law abiding citizen and why should I be put through the hassle of having to drive to town, fill out a 4473 and wait 3 days(I always get delayed) just to drive back to town, to take possession of a firearm? And then pay an additional $50 on top of that. Hell, several firearms that I've purchased from a private party only cost $100.
I think you're getting mixed up in your zeal to argue with me.
Delete"We know that the straw buyers aren't going to do a NICS, do you really think the friends and family that are complicit with the crime are going to do a NICS?"
That makes no sense. Straw purchasers do submit to the background check. They just fail to hold on to the gun afterwards, which is why registration and follow-us is required.
About where criminals get their guns, I've covered that a few times. The studies you cite are flawed because they don't take into consideration the original source of the gun, they only look at the most recent transfer.
That makes no sense.
DeleteBecause you don't want to understand. A straw buyer will not do a NICS check when he transfers the firearm to the person for whom he purchase the firearm. Friends and family who know that the firearm is going to be used in a crime will not perform a background check before transferring the firearm. Drug dealers, illegally selling a firearm, will not conduct a background check before they transfer a firearm to their customer, etc. Criminals will not adhere to the law now, nor will they if the law changes, but you already knew that.
You support universal background checks, not because of some perceived effect on crime or criminals, but because it would only work with universal registration, which won't happen.
Mikeb, will you address the points that we raise?
Delete1. America's experience trying to ban alcohol should tell you what will happen with attempts to ban guns. Don't bother saying that a ban is not what you want. You've recently admitted that you support a may-issue system for owner licenses. The tribunal that you proposed would deny most applications.
2. There are more than 300,000,000 guns in this country. Most of them are unregistered. Many of them have passed from one owner to another or to several owners since their manufacture and sale. Some of them were made before the ATF forms came into being. All of those will be available as black market goods.
3. Registration is a necessary step toward confiscation. We won't allow that.
Your answers?
Bill, I never proposed background checks as a cure for straw purchasing. The cure for that is registration of newly bought guns and a good followup.
DeleteI agree that true criminals will not be affected by a background check law or any other, at least not directly. But there are many gray-area guys, I call them hidden criminals, who when faced with a legal requirement will adhere.
Forcing .7% of armed criminals to get their guns somewhere else should have a *huge* impact on crime.
ReplyDeletehttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
The generally accepted figure for private sales is 40%. That's what we're talking about.
DeleteIt's such a crying shame when all those law-abiding citizens do things that you can't control.
DeleteWoah!! 40% of criminals get their guns via private sales? I would love to see that study/fact! Please show it to me.
DeleteOhh, wait ... you can't because is doesn't exist.
So what you really want to do is create hurdles that only impact the non-criminal seeing as how only a very very small number of them get their weapon from gun-shows.
And, if the "private sales' is really what you are talking about, why do you call it the "gun show loophole"? A bit deceptive, isn't it?
But Frail Liberty, you're forgetting that he regards all American gun owners as potential criminals. That's why he thinks that all those gun show sales are bad. Showing him facts won't change his opinions.
DeleteGreg. Exactly! That is the nail on the head. We show criminals almost never get guns from gunshows and he still insist on control every private transaction.
DeleteThat can only mean exactly as you say: "he regards all American gun owners as potential criminals".
No, I forgot we were talking about criminals. The 40% is about legitimate gun sales. Sorry.
DeleteApology accepted! So we can now stop talking about the non-existent gun-show loop hole because we know that it would have a negligent effect on arming criminals. Great!
Delete