Since he took the time to look up statistics in another thread, a thread was was further down the list, it appears he has run away.

So… does this mean you finally admit there is a loophole?

“Treat all gun sales as if they were being done by a dealer?”

YES!

Make it so you have to be licensed to buy a gun. Getting the license would involve an FBI background check. When you buy a gun, you must register it in your name, which would verify the transaction as well.

“Who will pay for it?”

The person getting the license.

“Who will pay for the additional federal employees to perform the checks?”

The person getting the license.

J.G.Thayer: “‘It’s worth a bit more, but we’ve been friends all our lives, so it’s a deal. Now let’s go down to the police station and start the paperwork, you pay the fee, and we’ll wait six to eight weeks to get approval. After all, you could be some psycho ex mental patient with seventeen felonies on your record. Hunting season will be over by then, but you’ll be set for next year.’”

If you can’t get organized enough to get a gun in time for hunting season, you shouldn’t have a gun. I’m sure fellow hunters would rather not deal with people like that.

So, then, Strowbridge, what would YOUR solution be? Treat all gun sales as if they were being done by a dealer? Require ALL gun sales to subject the buyer to a background check? Who will pay for it? Who will pay for the additional federal employees to perform the checks?

“Hey, Bob, I just bought a new shotgun. Ain’t she a beauty?”

“That’s nice, Ray. What you gonna do with your old one?”

“Hadn’t really thought about it. It’s still a fine gun, but I don’t need two. You wanna buy it?”

“Sure. I’ll give you three hundred bucks for it.”

“It’s worth a bit more, but we’ve been friends all our lives, so it’s a deal. Now let’s go down to the police station and start the paperwork, you pay the fee, and we’ll wait six to eight weeks to get approval. After all, you could be some psycho ex mental patient with seventeen felonies on your record. Hunting season will be over by then, but you’ll be set for next year.”

Oh, and no, Strowbridge, it didn’t take me six minutes to type that response. It took me six minutes to hit reply, start typing, get a phone call, go to the bathroom, finish watching a video, check my e-mail, finish typing, and hit “submit.”

J.

How about you answer my questions. Or did you take four hours to write this post? (That last part was a joke, by the way.)

But back to the serious point. How about you address the obvious loophole, or do you still think it doesn’t exist? Are you still confused over its name?

And what about the Southern Strategy? Is is racist? Is it still in use today? Is it responsible to drawing racist people to the GOP?

“The number of guns on the campus was significantly higher than, say, Virginia Tech’s campus — and it was the nominally ‘gun-free’ school that drew the killer.”

Are you on fucking crack? The guy was a revenge killer; he went to where the people who wronged him were. (Granted, he was nuts, literally, and the wrongs were (mostly) imagined.)

Don’t bring up the Virginia Tech shootings, because it is a textbook example of why gun control is necessary. Crazy people shouldn’t get guns.

But the larger point remains that government has a right to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Do you get to own a Browning .50 cal? Nope. Far too ridiculous. Can we restrict you to one gun purchase a month? Absolutely. That’s not an unreasonable restriction on responsible gun owners interested in sport and home defense.

But enjoy living in Koo-Koo Krazy Land. Hope the weather’s nice.

There’s a simple question at the core of so many of these disputes: who do you trust more — your government, or your fellow citizens?

You know that our government includes American citizens (and not Klingons), right?

Right?

Sure it was, Jay.

There’s a simple question at the core of so many of these disputes: who do you trust more — your government, or your fellow citizens?

Oh, for fuck’s sake.

Another way of putting this is who are you more paranoid of?

Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter who they’re paranoid of, paranoids are the people I least trust to have guns.

You argue that since Utah law allows for students to carry concealed weapons, and that since there have been no campus shootings in Utah, it was the concealed weapons law that prevented campus shootings. Just because event A preceded event B, does not mean A caused B.

Actually, the core principle behind the gun-control advocates is that it is the presence of the gun that presents the danger. That is the theory behind “gun-free zones,” behind increased restrictions on legal gun owners, and the like — that the possession of a gun inherently makes the bearer more dangerous.

The college example my fellow Jay cites is not arguing that the guns prevented shootings, but their presence did NOT result in the owners suddenly going on a shooting spree. The number of guns on the campus was significantly higher than, say, Virginia Tech’s campus — and it was the nominally “gun-free” school that drew the killer.

There’s a simple question at the core of so many of these disputes: who do you trust more — your government, or your fellow citizens?

J.

You argue that since Utah law allows for students to carry concealed weapons, and that since there have been no campus shootings in Utah, it was the concealed weapons law that prevented campus shootings. Just because event A preceded event B, does not mean A caused B.

By that logic, you can point to a number of states that do not allow concealed weapons, and also did not have campus shootings. Wisconsin does not allow concealed weapons, but there have been no campus shootings in that state. Was the absence of such a law the cause? Or more likely, was it a non-factor.

I can see the value of owning a gun. If a guy working in a gas station in a bad neighborhood wants to protect himself, I would not feel right saying he has no right to protect himself. Here in Illinois, we have had a number of high-profile cases of women who were killed by someone they had a restraining order against. Such women should be allowed to have a gun.

But is it really that much of a burden to treat gun ownership much as we treat car ownership? Is limiting someone to one gun a month that much of a hardship?

It’s amusing that the law and order crowd seems to stand in opposition of most police associations in this matter. Anytime policemen argue for stricter gun laws, the gun lobby goes into overdrive in opposition.

The Two Jays are just hung up on the name.

To you it’s a bug, to them it’s a feature..

I think the argument was cost. It’s too high of a cost for an individual who wants to sell a gun.

Here’s the problem…

There’s no limit to the size of your gun collection, so you could have 1000s of guns you buy and sell every year. As long as you call them a collection, you’re fine. As soon as you call them inventory, you need to do background checks.

That’s a loophole. No doubt about it.

The Two Jays are just hung up on the name.

Well, the problem with that is there are no fucking Galters. Just a bunch of crybabies.

The problem is that the gun show crows, the NRA, and the like all oppose the “gun free zones” as gun control and fight the implementation of them like rabid hyenas.

Can’t have it both ways.

It does not infringe on your 2nd amendment rights in any way.

Perhaps they should be calling it a Gun Show Parking Lot Loophole.

1) Is there reliable data on how effective background checks are in reducing crime?

2) If the answer to that is yes, and further, that they are effective, is there any reason background checks shouldn’t be required for all gun sales?

I hear Mogadishu is nice this time of year.

We need a Venn diagram of Galters and universal concealed carriers. If the overlap is substantial, you might have something here.

I hear Mogadishu is nice this time of year.

5) The gun show merely allows non-dealers who want to sell guns to readily find buyers, and vice versa.

*sigh* One more time, Jay. I know we’ve gone over this before, but number 4 above is the loophole. Now, perhaps not technically a loophole regarding gun shows, but loopholes in the law nonetheless.

Why you cannot acknowledge that really belies logic.