Tuesday, November 23, 2010

More on the Gun Show Loophole

Japete wrote a wonderful post and included the link to this wonderful video which clearly describes what is known as the "gun show loophole," and how it works in Arizona. 

But the gun lobby is in total denial about the problem.
To me, "denial" seems to indicate some kind of mental blind-spot, as if to say the gun lobby genuinely believes there is no problem.  Gun bloggers like to repeat "there's no such thing" referring to this phenomenon. After turning the argument into something beyond tedious, they often get us to agree that it's not limited to gun shows and the term "gun show loophole" would be better rendered "private sale loophole."

All that arguing about whether it exists or whether it's worded right is all a big smokescreen used to obscure what is the single most obvious lacuna in gun control laws in America.  This is one of the ways violent criminals and other prohibited people can and do get guns.  There are other ways, specifically by recruiting straw buyers, but this "loophole" way is one that can easily be stopped.

What's your opinion?  Do you think the gun lobby and individual gun-rights activists don't understand what we're talking about? Or do you think they only pretend to not understand? 

Why do they oppose so strongly the requiring of background checks on every transfer? All of the complaints I've seen add up to inconvenience and expense, which I would think are well worth it. Do some of those who oppose this fear a slippery slope?  What would be the next law they'd expect if they allowed this one? 

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

17 comments:

  1. "What's your opinion? Do you think the gun lobby and individual gun-rights activists don't understand what we're talking about?"

    Yes, we understand exactly what you are talking about.

    You complain about the use of the word ban to describe a ban yet you are okay with slinging "loophole" around when there is no loophole.

    I am going to try and make this as plain as possible. THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE. How can you say otherwise and not be a liar?

    ReplyDelete
  2. FWM, I always thought you were just breaking balls when you said there's no loophole, but this comment has me wondering. What do you mean? If we avoid calling it the "gun show loophole" you still have a problem with it?

    Don't you think "loophole" describes what goes on when background checks are required for buying a gun except if it's a private transaction? What would you have us call that? I know, let me guess, freedom, right?

    Seriously, why are you against requiring background checks on all gun sales? Wouldn't that eliminate one of the easiest ways bad guys get guns?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike, since you and Japete (what a joke) know the exact letter of the law in every state in our country, would you please be so kind as to show me the gun show loophole anywhere in any states laws, or federal law for that matter? There is, in fact, no gun show loophole. Yes, private citizens are allowed by federal law to sell their legally acquired firearms to other private citizens without having to perform a background check at gun shows. Guess what? They're allowed to do that almost everywhere else. Their homes, their places of business, where ever. That's not a loophole, that's the law.

    As for your insistence on requiring background checks for all gun sales, I'm sure you haven't done a bit of research on the matter but according to the CDC, of the 15 leading causes of death in this country suicide comes in at 11 and homicide at 15 (and not all suicides and homicides involve firearms) with heart disease coming in at number 1. Wouldn't it be a better idea to require a background check and medical history before buying a Big Mac? Wouldn't that save more lives? Or are you not at all interested in saving lives and more about suppressing freedom?

    If you'd like to argue with someone about their gun laws, may I suggest the Swiss? They have the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and the lowest gun crime rate in the world. I'm sure they'd love to hear your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MikeB,

    A "loophole" in the law is an unintentional characteristic of a law which allows one to circumvent the law's intention without actually breaking that law.

    Since most all laws that require background checks specifically exempt private sales they are not "loopholes".

    If the laws that require background checks even just omitted the inclusion of private sales as an error or if they intended to include private sales but did not through an error in how the law was written, you could maybe refer to it as a loophole. However, the law is clear in that it specifically exempts private sales so there is no "loophole".

    The exclusion of private transfers is not an unintentional characteristic of the law but rather an intentional one specifically coded as such. No "loophole".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok, you need to start acknowledging the many of us who support background checks on all sales (not just gunshows) so long as private sales are preserved. Time and time again we talk about it, and then you ignore it the next time you bring it up by saying “Why do they oppose so strongly the requiring of background checks on every transfer?” If that is all you are after, why on earth do you keep ignoring these voices? What are you really after?

    MikeB: “All of the complaints I've seen add up to inconvenience and expense…”

    And not being able to sell your own private property! Remember that complaint? How about at the same time you are trying to make all sales go through an FFL, you also want to run half of them out of business by forcing them to install $100,000 vaults. To quote you; “Do you think the [gun control folks] and individual [anti-gun bloggers] don't understand what we're talking about? Or do you think they only pretend to not understand?”

    ReplyDelete
  6. FWM: “The exclusion of private transfers is not an unintentional characteristic of the law but rather an intentional one specifically coded as such.”

    And stamped with the Brady Campaign’s approval. In fact, it has their name on it. It is called “The Brady Bill”, and they knew damn well what it covered and didn’t cover. Not a loophole.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TS said it's not just invonvenience it's "not being able to sell your own private property."

    Where did you get that? Under the "background check required on all transfers" system, you'd be able to sell all the "private property" you want, you'd just have to get a background check to do so.

    FWM, you're nickel-and-dimin' me on that definition of what a loophole is and is not. I happen to see it differently. If the law says "background checks except for private sales," I say that's a loophole.

    Am I being sloppy with the English language, maybe but I don't think so. Am I actually misusing the word, no. Do you understand what I'm saying, yes indeed.

    We need background checks on all transfers, call it what you want. This is in order to help you guys with the dangerous trap of selling your guns to the wrong people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, Mike, you are not being sloppy with the English language. Fat White Man ignores one of the meanings of the word: an exception in a law or regulation. An explicit and intentional exception or exemption written into a law constitutes a "loophole."

    To be sure, you could more accurately describe the loophole you discuss here as a "background check loophole," since it applies away from gun shows. But it is nevertheless a loophole in every sense of the word.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scott,

    You a re very wrong. The exception is specifically written into the law ON PURPOSE. Private transfers are exempt by design. That is not a LOOPHOLE, that is a codified law.

    A "loophole" in the law is an unintentional characteristic of a law which allows one to circumvent the law's intention without actually breaking that law.

    The exclusion of private sales was INTENTIONAL, not UNintentional.

    Blame the Brady's, they wrote it that way on purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MikeB: “Where did you get that? Under the "background check required on all transfers" system, you'd be able to sell all the "private property" you want, you'd just have to get a background check to do so.”

    Which is what I agreed to- so long as you don’t have to go through an FFL. Can you agree to that as well? If you have to sell through an intermediary, then no- you are not allowed to sell your private property. It is essentially like having to sell to the FFL, who in turn sells to your buyer (and the FFL gets their cut). Are you on board with my suggestion? You get your background checks, but without devaluing everyone’s gun collection.

    Note that this proposal is not even a compromise. I am not asking for anything in return (as I often do). I am merely stating that we add the means, and then the requirement for private sellers to check that a buyer is not a prohibited person. It is straight up gun control. The line only moves to your side. What could not be good about it from your point of view? What have you ever proposed that is only for gun-rights?

    ReplyDelete
  11. R. Stanton Scott: “Fat White Man ignores one of the meanings of the word: an exception in a law or regulation. An explicit and intentional exception or exemption written into a law constitutes a "loophole."

    So the exemption for persons under a certain income level from having to pay income taxes would constitute a loophole?

    ReplyDelete
  12. So the law says that all children in a vehicle have to wear seat belts with the exception that schoolbusses are exempt from the requirement (why, I have no idea) then that would be a schoolbus loophole.

    Most gun laws have an exemption for police and military. So if California has a ban on assault rifles, unless you are employed by a state or federal agency that requires you to go armed to perform your duties, then that would be a Police Officer Loophole?

    No assault rifles then should be allowed at Camp Pendleton otherwise that is the dreaded MARINE LOOPHOLE?

    ReplyDelete
  13. A loophole is a weakness or exception which allows circumvention of a law or system. Lawmakers include these exceptions all the time, because they intend for some people to evade the stated reason for the law.

    Just because they place the exception there intentionally does not mean it is not a loophole.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Just because they place the exception there intentionally does not mean it is not a loophole."

    Actually, by definition if they place it there intentionally then it is not a loophole.

    ReplyDelete
  15. FWM, whether it's intentional or not seems a minor point to focus the entire energy of the argument on. Let's call it a quirk. These quirks in the law allow people who are violent, convicted, mentally ill, gun criminals to buy guns without any paperwork or background checks. That's a quirk.

    a : an abrupt twist or curve
    b : a peculiar trait : idiosyncrasy
    c : accident, vagary <a quirk of fate

    ReplyDelete
  16. TS, the need to go through an FFL guy or to make the checking system open to everyone are just details. I would think an on-line system open to everyone would be the way to go. But, remember, we're talking about a very unlikely hypothetical situation good for only one thing, arguing on the blogs. I wish I were more influential than that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MikeB: “TS, the need to go through an FFL guy or to make the checking system open to everyone are just details.”

    You may think they are just details, but it is a big detail. One has some gun owner support, the other has none. Which one do you think gun control should pursue?

    ReplyDelete