MSNBC has declared the following ad to be too controversial to air. I can’t possibly see anything remotely controversial about it. And you get the sense that if the people advertising were the drug companies and financial services firms MSNBC runs on a constant loop, it wouldn’t be so “controversial”.
You know what else is “controversial”? Dead people, killed by the weapons they obtain at gun shows without going through the proper checks.
GE is merely extending professional courtesy to fellow weapons merchants.
Maybe they’re not running the ad because it’s bogus. There is no gun show loophole.
Tinkerbell came back to life! Thanks Jay!
Can you try that with some students from Virginia Tech now?
Can you try that with some students from Virginia Tech now?
What would guns purchased at gun shows have to do with with the Virginia Tech shootings?
Oh wait! You must be one of the
idiotspeople who believed Frank Lautenberg and the Brady Campaign when they claimed Seung-hui Cho bought one of the guns he used at a gun show. Sorry to deflate that balloon pal, but it’s not true.No, no Jay, you’re a little confused. See, lack of background checks were what caused Columbine. VT was when a mentally-ill person was allowed access to firearms because the state didn’t give a shit about forwarding that information to the database. But it’s totally cool even though Bush signed a law saying that has to, you know, happen now, since he can still just buy ‘em at the gun show! Hooray!
This isn’t about PAST massacres, Jay! It’s about FUTURE multiple gun killings! God, why the FUCK are those liberals trying to ruin the honored American passtime of blowing innocent people’s brains out?
Background checks are stupid. Just because more updated systems and better regulation would have prevented a massacre it totally isn’t worth our FREEDOM!
There is no gun show loophole! Current background check systems work perfectly! CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP
MSNBC pulls stunts like this to “prove they’re not liberal” to Defendant O’Reilly
No, no Jay, you’re a little confused.
I’m confused? The issue is about gun shows and you’re talking about Va Tech.
See, lack of background checks were what caused Columbine.
No, what ’caused’ Columbine were two teenage boys. The guns were acquired illegally via a straw purchase and two men that illegally sold guns to minors. It had nothing to do with background checks, but nice try.
VT was when a mentally-ill person was allowed access to firearms because the state didn’t give a shit about forwarding that information to the database.
Actually, it had nothing to do with the state supposedly “not giving a shit”, but gaps between federal and state law. Such gaps have been closed with the support of those who support the constitution.
Background checks are stupid.
Who’s saying that? Your lame attempts at sarcasm are typical of the previous drivel you write.
Just because more updated systems and better regulation would have prevented a massacre it totally isn’t worth our FREEDOM!
Once again, you’re off on a tangent about Virginia Tech, mental background checks and such. What does that have to do with gun shows? Cripes, what a maroon.
There is no gun show loophole!
That’s the first correct thing you’ve written. Congratulations.
“There is no gun show loophole.”
Jay, could you explain this statement a little more?
As I understand it, the “gun show loophole,” as it were, refers to the exemption of private individuals “not engaged in the business” from background check laws. These private sellers do not have to have a federal license and are free from the requirement of performing background checks.
That exemption still stands, as far as i know. Has that exemption been removed or do you have a different understanding of the phrase “gun show loophole”?
No, what ’caused’ Columbine were two teenage boys.
Incorrect, Jay. Everyone knows that Doom was responsible. Just ask conservative hero, Jack Thompson.
The guns were acquired illegally via a straw purchase and two men that illegally sold guns to minors.
Um, that sounds kinda loop hole-y to me.
Perhaps it is BECAUSE all three candidates agree on it that it is too controversial. Giving the appearance of unity on an issue destroys the drama of a contentious political race.
Fafaroo, there is no ‘exemption’ because transactions between private individuals is legal not only at gun shows, but anywhere else. The term “gun show loophole” makes it seem as though sales between individuals is only legal and doesn’t require a background check at a gun show and that is not the case.
Um, okay. But that isn’t the same thing as saying that “There is no gun show loophole.” What you should have said, it seems, it that “There isn’t ONLY a gun show loophole.”
Whether non-professional individuals legally sell guns without background checks from their homes or a gun show, the problem is still the same.
Just because the phrase used by gun control advocates to draw attention to the policy change they seek is too narrow in its focus, doesn’t mean the problem they seek to address doesn’t exist. Right?
If I buy a car from someone, I still have to register it and get inspected, or otherwise certified that it is safe to drive, not only for me but for other people on the road. Why is buying a lethal weapon form some guy not as enforced?
Fafaroo, there is no ‘exemption’ because transactions between private individuals is legal not only at gun shows, but anywhere else.
It’s almost as if that’s a loophole in the requirement to have background checks on purchases at gun shows. But that makes no sense because I was told it doesn’t exist. So it doesn’t.
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP
Jay: There is no gun show loophole.
fafaroo: Jay, could you explain this statement a little more?
Jay: transactions between private individuals is legal not only at gun shows, but anywhere else. The term “gun show loophole” makes it seem as though sales between individuals is only legal and doesn’t require a background check at a gun show and that is not the case.
Thanks, fafaroo, for asking for the clarification. And thanks, Jay, for providing it so clearly. Isn’t it nice when people talk to each other clearly and make sure they’re talking about the same thing? Sooo much more productive than distorting others’ words and responding to that with asshat-ery.
Ok, so the “loophole” doesn’t a specifically occur at gun shows. I’m not familiar with the gun market or rules related to them myself. If I have a gun that I buy from a licensed dealer, I presume that some background check has to be done and that I become a eregistered owner. That is, there is some official record (that the police have?) that I own a gun. Is this true? If I then sell that gun privately to my neighbor, doesn’t something have to be filed showing that my neighbor now has the gun? I have to tell the DMV when I transfer title to my car. Wouldn’t I have to do so when I transfer title to my gun?
Is the only difference that I don’t have to run a background check on my neighbor? That does seem like a “loophole” of sorts to me. If we’re saying a person should not be able to buy a gun, why basically void that by limiting to “should not be able to buy from this particular vendor but that one is OK“?
There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” The same federal laws apply to gun sales regardless for where they take place.
I have to tell the DMV when I transfer title to my car. Wouldn’t I have to do so when I transfer title to my gun?
Indeed, that is central to my point.
That’s a good point, Sean. Why don’t guns have titles? Jay?
Um, okay. But that isn’t the same thing as saying that “There is no gun show loophole.” What you should have said, it seems, it that “There isn’t ONLY a gun show loophole.”
There’s no loopholes at all. Sales between private individuals are legal. As long as both the seller and the buyer are not prohibited from owning firearms, such transactions are legal.
Whether non-professional individuals legally sell guns without background checks from their homes or a gun show, the problem is still the same.
What problem? Do you have any supporting evidence to show that sales between private individuals is the cause of large volumes of crime?
Just because the phrase used by gun control advocates to draw attention to the policy change they seek is too narrow in its focus, doesn’t mean the problem they seek to address doesn’t exist. Right?
If sales between private individuals is such a problem, why limit their focus to only gun shows? Let’s say that a federal law passes that requires background checks for all purchases at gun shows. Since private individuals don’t have access to the NICS database, such a law would effectively do away with private individuals selling at a show. Yet, they’d still be able to (in most states) sell through a classified ad, garage sale, personal contacts, etc. The background checks can easily be circumvented by somebody that is hell bent on committing a crime. So what does that leave us with with regard to the push for closing the “gun show loophole”?
Empty political symbolism.
But, jay, you honestly don’t see that as a loophole? Seriously? If I were a criminal, there would be nothing to stop me from breaking into houses, stealing guns and then selling them on ebay or something? And if they get used in criminal activities, oh well.
If sales between private individuals is such a problem, why limit their focus to only gun shows?
See, now we’re getting somewhere.
So what does that leave us with with regard to the push for closing the “gun show loophole”?
Isn’t the answer fairly obvious? Legally obtained firearms.
The background checks can easily be circumvented by somebody that is hell bent on committing a crime.
Same with stealing cars. What’s your point?
“There’s no loopholes at all. Sales between private individuals are legal.”
Yes, Jay. And sales between licensed professional dealers is legal. Legality isn’t the question here.
What’s being questioned is the different requirements for different kinds of gun sellers. Non-professional individuals are not covered under the background check laws that regulate the sales of professionals. That’s the issue and it’s what gun control advocates see as a problem.
The exemption exists. You said it didn’t. If gun control advocates are only seeking that all sellers at gun shows be subject to background check laws, that seems like a pretty narrow focus and the phrase “gun show loophole” actually highlights the narrow focus of their agenda.
If you have a problem with the term “loophole” then you’re really getting into semantics and we may as well be talking about Republicans naming a piece of pro-logging legislation the “Healthy Forests Act.”
As to whether this exemption is actually a “problem” or not, it certainly suggests an inconsistency in the law in that someone who wouldn’t pass a background check for whatever reason could still obtain a gun from a non-professional individual, whether at a gun show or through a classified ad. Suggesting that the background check laws should be consistent, at least in the context of gun shows, doesn’t seem like such a big deal. If you’re a non-professional seller, why couldn’t the state set up a system at gun shows specifically to give private sellers access to the NICS database at some special booth, or whatever? If you want to buy a gun from a non-professional, the non-professional simply walks over the background check booth and runs your info, just like a professional. Is that so onerous a requirement?
As to whether that requirement should extend to people selling guns from their garage or home, well, is the rigmarole of getting a license and access to the database commensurate with the extent to which guns purchased legally without background checks are used in crimes? I don’t know. I’ve read that only 2 percent of violent gun crime involves a gun purchased legally but without a background check. Is 2 percent too much? I’m sure the victims families would think so.
Do you want to get into a discussion of victims rights here?
Ultimately, you initially suggested that this complex situation did not exist because “there was no loophole.” That simply isn’t the case, unless, again, all you care about is semantics.
If I have a gun that I buy from a licensed dealer, I presume that some background check has to be done and that I become a eregistered owner. That is, there is some official record (that the police have?) that I own a gun. Is this true?
The police do not have the record. The dealer is required to keep the form 4473 that is filled out at the time of purchase for 20 years so it can be traced back to the original purchaser.
If I then sell that gun privately to my neighbor, doesn’t something have to be filed showing that my neighbor now has the gun? I have to tell the DMV when I transfer title to my car. Wouldn’t I have to do so when I transfer title to my gun?
Depends on the state. California requires that all gun purchases whether through a dealer or private sale are made through a licensed dealer so there is a record of the transaction. 17 other states have similar provisions.
Would it be so onerous to create some sort of registry such as the DMV, or would that violate the all-holy and untouchable 2nd amendment? Would it be so outrageous to have to register a weapon and possess a title to said weapon? Whether with the local police or with ATF?
Legality isn’t the question here.
Sure it is! Why do you think the word ‘loophole’ is being used?
The exemption exists. You said it didn’t.
It doesn’t. A prohibited person is still prohibited from possessing or obtaining a firearm whether a background check is conducted or not.
If gun control advocates are only seeking that all sellers at gun shows be subject to background check laws, that seems like a pretty narrow focus and the phrase “gun show loophole” actually highlights the narrow focus of their agenda.
Except two individuals could walk out to the parking lot and conduct the same exact sale out of the trunk of a car.
If you have a problem with the term “loophole” then you’re really getting into semantics
No it is not about semantics. Again, a ‘loophole’ in the law is such that a person or entity can find a way around a law to do something that is technically legal. A person who is prohibited under Title 18 of the US code from possessing or purchasing firearms does not somehow legally do so at a gun show because a sale by a private individual didn’t require a background check.
If you’re a non-professional seller, why couldn’t the state set up a system at gun shows specifically to give private sellers access to the NICS database at some special booth, or whatever?
The state doesn’t have such authority because the NICS database is federal. Any such proposals coming from the federal government doesn’t address that which is not surprising. I’m sure if the feds were willing to pay for such access to do those background checks, you’d find far less opposition.
I don’t know. I’ve read that only 2 percent of violent gun crime involves a gun purchased legally but without a background check. Is 2 percent too much? I’m sure the victims families would think so.
Yeah well, if it’s all about stopping deaths, then why doesn’t the federal government mandate top speeds of 25mph in cars and 15mph in trucks?
Ultimately, you initially suggested that this complex situation did not exist because “there was no loophole.” That simply isn’t the case
That is most certainly the case.
“You know what else is “controversial”? Dead people, killed by the weapons they obtain at gun shows without going through the proper checks.”
Buyers at gun shows DO go through the proper checks Oliver. If YOU’D bother to check you’d know that.
By the way, WEAPONS dont kill people, CRIMINALS kill people.
A prohibited person is still prohibited from possessing or obtaining a firearm whether a background check is conducted or not.
And yet they could just go to a gun show or pick up a classified section of the newspaper.
So perhaps it isn’t a “legal” loophole, and that person is acting illegally. But you don’t see that as a problem?
Yeah well, if it’s all about stopping deaths, then why doesn’t the federal government mandate top speeds of 25mph in cars and 15mph in trucks?
Aha, but there’s the thing. Speed limits are regulated. Gun sales, at least in the cases of gun shows and/or private individual sales are not.
Do you see the difference?
If I get stopped by a cop and don’t have a valid registration or inspection sticker, my car gets towed and I’m walking. Why is there not a similar restriction for firearms?
Would it be so outrageous to have to register a weapon and possess a title to said weapon?
People are vehemently opposed to registration because of it potentially leading to confiscation. Read about what happened in Canada. Their gun registry system didn’t help to solve any crimes. It cost absurd amounts of money and it did eventually lead to confiscation.
In addition, to show that a gun registry system would be effective in combating crime, they would need to show that there’s a huge gap in the number of crimes solved because a weapon wasn’t registered and we’re not there. I don’t see any tangible benefits to gun registration.
People are vehemently opposed to registration because of it potentially leading to confiscation.
Well, that’s just the paranoia talkin’.
“Again, a ‘loophole’ in the law is such that a person or entity can find a way around a law to do something that is technically legal.”
You’re sort of talking in circles, Jay.
Background checks are a way to keep people who can’t legally own guns, from buying guns in the first place. But if no background check is required then that person can still buy a gun from a non-professional dealer. Correct? Which is to say, there exists a way to circumvent the intention of the law. That’s the very definition of a loophole. It isn’t a question of whether it’s legal for them to have a gun, obviously it isn’t. The question is how to keep them from purchasing a gun in the first place.
As to whether it’s a state or federal responsibility to provide access to the database at gun shows, i should have written government instead of state but by “state” I meant “The State” as in the government.
Yeah well, if it’s all about stopping deaths, then why doesn’t the federal government mandate top speeds of 25mph in cars and 15mph in trucks?
Nice dodge on the victims rights question. Interesting that conservatives appeal to victims rights when it comes to harsher jail terms but duck the issue when it comes to gun control.
Oh, and as for this:
People are vehemently opposed to registration because of it potentially leading to confiscation.
Yeah, just like in Red Dawn.
“If I were a criminal…”
When a criminal wants a gun, he doesn’t go to a gunshow (open only short hours on the weekend); he doesn’t go to a gunstore (more hours, but still only business hours).
He calls a local drug dealer. They work out contacts. This is pretty much a 24/7 service. The buyer brings cash, the seller brings a gun. No names or paperwork. No long drives, no entrance fees.
When this activity can be stopped, then direct your attention to “gun show loophols” or “titles for guns”. Because this is the way that most criminals get their guns — and any that might do it other ways, could easily switch to this method.
Heroin is illegal in every country in the world, yet it is available in every city in the U.S. The drug dealers could import the guns, by packing them in the heroin — they’d never be found.
So perhaps it isn’t a “legal” loophole, and that person is acting illegally. But you don’t see that as a problem?
It depends. My nephew purchased a 1911 .45 from a friend of his. My nephew is not legally prohibited from owning a firearm and neither was his friend. His friend created a bill of sale just to have a record of it. Was that a problem?
In order for a law to be effective, the state should be able to show that such a law serves a compelling interest to the state. If crimes committed by people who purchased weapons at a gun show from a private seller were rampant, then I could see the purpose. But the fact is, crimes resulting from such transactions are few. If one is going to use the “Well, if only one live is to be saved!” then one must be willing to apply that to all areas where government regulation can save a life. Yet too many people aren’t consistent in such thinking.
Aha, but there’s the thing. Speed limits are regulated. Gun sales, at least in the cases of gun shows and/or private individual sales are not.
Yes, those sales are too regulated. They’re not subject to background checks. You’re confusing a procedure with legality. Not requiring background checks between two private individuals does not lift any legal requirements for transferring and or taking possession of a firearm.
It is the Brady Campaign that is using semantics. They get people to refer to a “gun show loophole” because they know that some people think gun shows are bad and that loopholes are bad.
If they asked for “federal universal background checks for firearms transfers” they know they’d never get the bill to the floor.
Some states (not federal, and any state could try to pass these) require a licenses of sorts (e.g. IL, MA). To get these licenses, you must pass a background check. If one commits a crime the courts require that the license be surrendered.
Private transactions require the buyer to have the FOID license — as an indication of a background check.
Not surprisingly, criminals in IL and MA still get guns to use in their crimes.
How do we close the “Criminal Loophole”?
“Not requiring background checks between two private individuals does not lift any legal requirements for transferring and or taking possession of a firearm.”
But Jay, background checks are designed to stop sales in the first place if a buyer cannot legally own a gun. Removing background checks makes it possible for someone who can’t legally own a gun to actually purchase a gun. Which is, again, a loophole.
Not requiring background checks between two private individuals does not lift any legal requirements for transferring and or taking possession of a firearm.
But what is the incentive for the two parties to abide by the law? A sense of duty? What if they are not aware of the law?
In other words, what fafaroo said.
Yes, those sales are too regulated. They’re not subject to background checks.
Please explain the apparent contradiction here. How ws your nephew’s transaction regulated, aside from the bill of sale his friend provided which, according to you, he did not legally have to provide?
Put aside all the irrelevant back and forth about the meaning of the word “loophole”, whether it’s too narrowly applied to just gun shows or is an accurate description at all, how many lives would be saved if speed limits were reduced, etc etc
To me it seems the key inconsistency here is that we make a list of people who would not be allowed to buy guns, but then still allow a legal way for them to get guns in a legitimate transaction.
If there exists this list (NICS?) of people who guns are not supposed to be sold to, shouldn’t anyone selling a gun be required to make use of it? Otherwise, what’s the point of having the list?
Can we all agree that, if that is the situation, that as the situation currently exists it’s a bit illogical? And keep the discussion/disagreements on whether anything should be done about it?
“Can we all agree that, if that is the situation, that as the situation currently exists it’s a bit illogical?”
I think everyone here agrees that this is the case, except Jay.
As to remedies, I’m perfectly willing to concede that the solution — requiring everyone who sells a gun to run a background check — maybe too onerous given the stats on crimes in which guns so-purchased are implicated.
That said, if some states require that “all gun purchases whether through a dealer or private sale are made through a licensed dealer so there is a record of the transaction” why can’t the licensed dealer run the check at the time of transaction? For those states which require such an arrangement, adding background checks to the process doesn’t seem all that onerous at all.
Background checks are a way to keep people who can’t legally own guns, from buying guns in the first place. But if no background check is required then that person can still buy a gun from a non-professional dealer. Correct? Which is to say, there exists a way to circumvent the intention of the law. That’s the very definition of a loophole. It isn’t a question of whether it’s legal for them to have a gun, obviously it isn’t. The question is how to keep them from purchasing a gun in the first place.
Oh brother. How many times to do I have to explain the whole thing?
First of all, there’s no such thing as a “non-professional dealer.” If I decide to sell a WWII Luger and do so with a private transaction, I don’t suddenly turn into a ‘dealer.’ Second, how can somebody circumvent a law that does not exist? If person A is not prohibited from possessing or transferring firearms and sells to person B who is also not prohibited from possessing or transferring firearms, then a perfectly legal transaction has taken place because transactions between two private individuals does not require a background check. If person A is not prohibited from possessing or transferring firearms and sells to person B, who is prohibited from possessing firearms, then person B has just committed a felony and if found guilty in a court of law, can be sentenced up to ten years in prison. That is why there is no loophole. The gun was not acquired legally. And guess what? Background checks aren’t like manacles that physically prevent a person from acquiring a firearm.
Nice dodge on the victims rights question. Interesting that conservatives appeal to victims rights when it comes to harsher jail terms but duck the issue when it comes to gun control.
Sorry, but another person’s rights end where mine begin. Harsher jail sentences for violent crimes don’t conflict with constitutional issues.
Removing background checks makes it possible for someone who can’t legally own a gun to actually purchase a gun. Which is, again, a loophole.
They’re not purchasing it legally!
How ws your nephew’s transaction regulated, aside from the bill of sale his friend provided which, according to you, he did not legally have to provide?
That’s how it’s regulated.
Yeah, just like in Red Dawn.
Yeah, just like in Canada. How many times throughout history has the government told us that a certain piece of legislation would never lead to something else, only to see it happen X amount of years down the road?
But what is the incentive for the two parties to abide by the law? A sense of duty? What if they are not aware of the law?
Oh I figure for most people, 10 years in prison is a pretty good incentive to abide by the law. Those who aren’t concerned about that aren’t going to allow a background check to get in their way either. And ignorance is not a valid defense.
How many times to do I have to explain the whole thing?
But you haven’t.
Removing background checks makes it possible for someone who can’t legally own a gun to actually purchase a gun. Which is, again, a loophole.
They’re not purchasing it legally!
Exactly, Jay! That’s the loophole right there! See it?
That’s how it’s regulated.
I see. So, your nephew’s friend checked all that out first, right?
Guys, I think we got a Moebius strip going here.
To me it seems the key inconsistency here is that we make a list of people who would not be allowed to buy guns, but then still allow a legal way for them to get guns in a legitimate transaction.
That’s the whole point Sean. It’s NOT legal. That’s something that people seem to have trouble grasping. If the person is prohibited, the moment he takes possession of that gun, he is in violation of the law and can be subject to a prison term of ten years, background check or not. It’s not legal and it’s not legitimate.
Can we all agree that, if that is the situation, that as the situation currently exists it’s a bit illogical? And keep the discussion/disagreements on whether anything should be done about it?
What’s illogical is the proposal to require a background check at a gun show, but not require that same procedure 100 feet away in the parking lot. And that’s what I said it was nothing more than empty political symbolism. Such a law will have hardly any affect on violent crime since so few criminals actually purchase guns at gun shows.
Exactly, Jay! That’s the loophole right there! See it?
Right, and perhaps you can tell me what defense attorney will argue for his client that he legally purchased the firearm because there was no background check. After all, if there is a loophole, then no laws have been broken.
I see. So, your nephew’s friend checked all that out first, right?
I’m sure he did. Only a fool or a person that doesn’t care about going to prison isn’t going to make sure they transaction they’re conducting is legal.
“If the person is prohibited, the moment he takes possession of that gun, he is in violation of the law and can be subject to a prison term of ten years, background check or not.”
Jesus. Discussing something with you is proving increasingly pointless, but let’s try one more time.
Jay, the idea of background checks is to prevent some people from buying guns IN THE FIRST PLACE. The point of purchase is the first best place that law enforcement has to regulate who gets their hands on a weapon. Once the person has the gun, the police have to wait until the person commits a crime with it or is discovered by law enforcement with it in order to make a charge. Otherwise, the person can go on owning a gun illegally forever — a gun they never should have been able to buy in the first place.
It’s like suggesting that people shouldn’t need prescriptions to get regulated drugs because it’s already illegal for them to posses or consume regulated drugs. That really makes sense to you?
Jay: First of all, there’s no such thing as a “non-professional dealer.” If I decide to sell a WWII Luger and do so with a private transaction, I don’t suddenly turn into a ‘dealer.’
See, Jay. This is arguing semantics. I think any reasonable person who isn’t going to nit pick the actual word choice would get that “non-professional dealer” is just being used to refer to someone who doesn’t, you know, regularly deal in gun sales.
fafaroo: Removing background checks makes it possible for someone who can’t legally own a gun to actually purchase a gun. Which is, again, a loophole.
Jay: They’re not purchasing it legally!
No they’re not. You’re right there. But, again, you’re nit picking the specific word choice of “loophole” to describe the situation so you don’t have to deal with the point actually being made: “makes it possible for someone who can’t legally own a gun to actually purchase a gun”.
Sean: Can we all agree that, if that is the situation, that as the situation currently exists it’s a bit illogical? And keep the discussion/disagreements on whether anything should be done about it?
Jay: What’s illogical is the proposal to require a background check at a gun show, but not require that same procedure 100 feet away in the parking lot.
OK, so DO we agree on that.
Jesus. Discussing something with you is proving increasingly pointless, but let’s try one more time.
Take a look in the mirror pal. You keep clinging to the notion that if a background check is not conducted, a perfectly legal transaction has taken place which it hasn’t. I’ve had to repeat that a zillion times already.
Jay, the idea of background checks is to prevent some people from buying guns IN THE FIRST PLACE. The point of purchase is the first best place that law enforcement has to regulate who gets their hands on a weapon.
And you don’t seem to comprehend that criminals don’t follow laws. You naively think that a Brady/NICS denial is the cure for illegal gun possession. First of all, the NICS database has and does return returned false positives. Second, a denial only disallows the person to buy a gun at that particular point. Some people don’t even know they’re prohibited until they’ve undergone the background check, and had no intention of committing any sort of crime. It will prevent criminals stupid enough to undergo that check knowing they’ll be denied from getting a gun at that moment, but they can easily acquire guns elsewhere.
It’s like suggesting that people shouldn’t need prescriptions to get regulated drugs because it’s already illegal for them to posses or consume regulated drugs.
Bad analogy. Just because I acquire regulated drugs without a prescription, doesn’t mean I’ve done so legally and have taken advantage of some kind of ‘loophole’ that makes it legal.
“makes it possible for someone who can’t legally own a gun to actually purchase a gun”
Not requiring background checks for every gun transfer is not what makes it possible.
What makes it possible, is that some people are willing to violate the law at the risk of imprisonment to sell a gun to someone who can’t legally purchase a gun (and who is willing to buy one anyway at risk of imprisonment.
Let’s take an example. All handguns are illegal in England now (their Olympic Pistol Team is staioned in Belgium).
England requires licences and registraion for fhe few long guns that are permitted. Tehre are no backgournd checks for handgun sales anywhere, because no handgun can be sold anywhere in England.
Yet, this island in the North Atlantic, has plenty (and increasing) handgun violence — robbery and murders.
If the Brittish Parliament put in place a system that provided background checks for every handgun purchase, then returned “negative, no sale” for any actual checks called in, would fewer handguns get in the hands of criminals?
If not, why do you think that requiring background checks for every gun transfer in the U.S. would mean fewer guns would get into the hands of the wrong people?
That’s the whole point Sean. It’s NOT legal. That’s something that people seem to have trouble grasping. If the person is prohibited, the moment he takes possession of that gun, he is in violation of the law and can be subject to a prison term of ten years, background check or not. It’s not legal and it’s not legitimate.
And the only person that knows that is the person who bought the gun in the first place.
You keep clinging to the notion that if a background check is not conducted, a perfectly legal transaction has taken place which it hasn’t.
No, that’s what you’ve been saying. If I buy a gun from a guy in the parking lot of a gun show, you are saying that is a legal transaction even though no bg check has taken place.
Some people don’t even know they’re prohibited until they’ve undergone the background check, and had no intention of committing any sort of crime
So, in theory, you’re nephew could have been prohibited from buying that gun. You gonna turn him in?
It will prevent criminals stupid enough to undergo that check knowing they’ll be denied from getting a gun at that moment, but they can easily acquire guns elsewhere.
Thus, the hole in the law, Jay. There it is again! See it? Aw, ya missed it.
If person A is not prohibited from possessing or transferring firearms and sells to person B, who is prohibited from possessing firearms, then person B has just committed a felony and if found guilty in a court of law, can be sentenced up to ten years in prison.
And what happens to person A? So the burden of proof rests solely on person B? Does person B just automatically have to wear a sign saying “I R a Felon”?
Illogical, Captain.
Right, and perhaps you can tell me what defense attorney will argue for his client that he legally purchased the firearm because there was no background check.
I don’t give a shit how a defense attorney will argue his case. That would be his job, not mine.
I see. So, your nephew’s friend checked all that out first, right?
Jay:I’m sure he did. Only a fool or a person that doesn’t care about going to prison isn’t going to make sure they transaction they’re conducting is legal.
Aha. So your nephew’s friend would be liable?
And the only person that knows that is the person who bought the gun in the first place.
So what?
No, that’s what you’ve been saying. If I buy a gun from a guy in the parking lot of a gun show, you are saying that is a legal transaction even though no bg check has taken place.
No, that is NOT what I have been saying. If neither of you are prohibited from possessing or owning firearms, a legal transaction has taken place. You and Fafaroo keep saying that if a background check does not take place, a legal transaction has occurred.
Thus, the hole in the law, Jay. There it is again!
I’m about ready to tear my hair out of my head. You’re not a stupid person, but you cannot seem to comprehend what a legal loophole is. I’m going to ask you a question.
A person with a felony drug conviction purchases a firearm from a private individual at a gun show, bypassing a background check he would have had to undergo had be purchased at the same show from a dealer with an FFL.
Was the gun purchased legally, yes or no?
No. And that’s what we’ve been arguing. That person with a felony drug conviction should not be allowed to purchase a gun under any circumstances, but because he bought it from a private individual, he has bypassed the legal system. That needs to be toughened up.
“Harsher jail sentences for violent crimes don’t conflict with constitutional issues.”
Yeah, the constitution has nothing to say on cruel and unusual punishment …
“You keep clinging to the notion that if a background check is not conducted, a perfectly legal transaction has taken place which it hasn’t.”
Um, I think you’re actually my point, Jay: A perfectly illegal transaction has taken place because no background check was required.
Is it that hard to understand?
“And you don’t seem to comprehend that criminals don’t follow laws.”
And not requiring background checks makes it easier for them to do just that, that is NOT follow the law. All they have to do is go to a private, non-professional seller and buy a gun. Simple as that.
“Just because I acquire regulated drugs without a prescription, doesn’t mean I’ve done so legally and have taken advantage of some kind of ‘loophole’ that makes it legal.”
My head just exploded. Do you even know what you’re arguing any more?
“Was the gun purchased legally, yes or no?”
For fucksakes, Jay.
Whether the gun was purchased legally DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER!!!! What matters is that the gun WAS PURCHASED PERIOD!!!!!!! If a background check had been done, the guy isn’t supposed to have a gun, WOULD NOT HAVE A FUCKING GUN!
That’s the point, man.
Let me ask you something, Jay. Are you satisfied with the current system as it is now? Are you satisfied that the way the system works right now is adequate in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals or other evil doers?
Oh, for fuck’s sake, guys. I’m astounded at how much folks can talk past each other. “It’s a loophole.” “It isn’t a ‘loophole.’” “An illegal sale occurred.” “The sale was not illegal.”
Gods.
As near as I can tell, ignoring the specific phrasings folks are choosing to use, everyone agrees that:
- A private individual can buy a gun from another private individual and not undergo a background check.
- As long as that is the case people who are not supposed to be able to get guns are able to get guns.
- This is an illogical situation. (Even Jay agreed to that.)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled chaos.
fafaroo: Whether the gun was purchased legally DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER!!!! What matters is that the gun WAS PURCHASED PERIOD!!!!!!! If a background check had been done, the guy isn’t supposed to have a gun, WOULD NOT HAVE A FUCKING GUN!
OK, points for faf for being pretty clear.
(sigh, it’s been a very long day…)
Wasn’t that what I was saying? Wasn’t that what many of us were saying? Isn’t that a loopy-hole?
Jay: “Loophole” does not mean illegal. Just the opposite. “Loophole” means a legal way to engage in behavior limited by law.
“Wasn’t that what I was saying?”
It’s exactly what you were saying. Next time though, try throwing in some swear words for clarity’s sake!
sigh
Definitions of loophole on the Web:
* an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.
news.firstdata.com/glossary.cfm
American Heritage Dictionary
1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.
(I made three, on-topic, posts which were not visible for awhile. Go back, and take a look.)
Whether the gun was purchased legally DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER!!!! What matters is that the gun WAS PURCHASED PERIOD!!!!!!! If a background check had been done, the guy isn’t supposed to have a gun, WOULD NOT HAVE A FUCKING GUN!
Yes and we all know that once somebody doesn’t pass a background check, that person is surrounded by a netherworld forcefield that prevents them from acquiring a gun any other way. They go to an area of the city or contact a person who can get them a gun, and those contacts say, “Sorry man. I see that forcefield around you. You didn’t pass a background check. Come back some other time.”
Can you comprehend how foolish you come off saying a background check will completely prevent a person from getting a gun?
A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.
Thank you. Just because a background check does not take place, does not mean the person in question is not violating the law. Whether the person buys at a gun show, from a garage sale, from a drug dealer, gets it from a brother or cousin, finds one on the street, has a genie in a bottle grant him a wish, finds a pot of Glocks at the end of a rainbow, or does a voodoo chant that makes one spring up from the ground, the moment he puts that firearm in his hand, he has committed a crime on both the state and federal level. You start having background checks for private sales at gun shows the only thing you will do is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to continue to be a law abiding citizen.
As long as that is the case people who are not supposed to be able to get guns are able to get guns.
They’ll be able to get guns anyway. Do you think gang members got their guns from a gun show or at a garage sale?
This is an illogical situation. (Even Jay agreed to that.)
Actually, I said it was illogical to apply it only to private sales at gun shows.
Let me ask you something, Jay. Are you satisfied with the current system as it is now? Are you satisfied that the way the system works right now is adequate in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals or other evil doers?
Ah, now we get to the real crux of the issue. Yes, I am satisfied because while people talk about all of the crimes committed in America with guns, it represents a minuscule percentage of the amount of guns owned in this country. Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with a firearm are traced back to a sale at a gun show. That means 98% of the transactions that take place at gun shows result in no crimes being committed. Yet, people support that passage of a law that will:
A. Not have any negligible affect on crime (since so few criminals buy guns at gun shows)
B. Not have any affect on private sales outside of gun shows.
Now, private sales of guns without a background check is legal in the majority of the states and has been for a long long time. Do we have some sort of epidemic of crimes being committed as a result of private sales of firearms? No. So why should we put in place a law that will hardly help in preventing crime and will only place a burden on law abiding citizens?
Now before you answer that. Let’s look at it from another perspective because I know some people (and Fafaroo has already done so) are going to say that the families of the victims of that 2% would certainly want such laws passed. So let’s look at the situation elsewhere.
You mentioned cars before. Drunk driving is responsible for far more deaths each year than crimes committed by people who purchase guns at gun shows. Of course, those crimes (and drunk driving in and of itself is a crime) are committed by a very small percentage of the general public that drives. Yet, what do we do about drunk driving with regard to legislation? States have
A. Lowered legal limits on being drunk (.08% seems to be the norm these days)
B. Improved technology to test people in the field to see if they are drunk
C. Increased penalties for drunk driving.
What we do not do, is place burdens on the vast majority of law abiding citizens that don’t drive drunk. What if Congress decided to pass a law that said everybody who went to any establishment where alcohol was served had to show their license and have a check run on it to see that the person’s license wasn’t suspended due to a drunk driving conviction? Or passed a law that said anybody going to a place where alcohol was served was prohibited from driving a motor vehicle of any kind? How well would that go over with the public? Do you think the X% of people who have lost loved ones due to a drunk driver would support such laws? And would it be ‘reasonable’ to put such laws in place if it was going to save even one life?
That’s an impressive bit of flailing there, Jay. Your usual desperation tactics are on full display but I must say, you’ve really taken them all up a notch to achieve a kind of idiot grandeur.
This, for instance, is easily the most dazzlingly obvious strawman you have ever constructed:
Can you comprehend how foolish you come off saying a background check will completely prevent a person from getting a gun?
To write something like that requires a serious suppression of good will and reason, the likes of which no mortal troll could possibly achieve. But what’s truly worthy of awe is that you managed you keep your reason locked in a choke hold long enough to go on to write this:
“You start having background checks for private sales at gun shows the only thing you will do is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to continue to be a law abiding citizen.”
Limiting the easy sale of guns to felons forces average citizens to break the law? That’s the stuff of right wing champions, man. My hat is off to you. The icing on the cake comes next, however, when you suggest that forcing criminals to buy guns from other criminals only takes money away from average, hard-working people who only want to make a little money while clearing out their garages of unwanted stuff:
They’ll be able to get guns anyway. Do you think gang members got their guns from a gun show or at a garage sale?
A more heroic defense of the little guy entrepreneur has never been composed.
Indeed, the whole post is just truly commendable in its obtuseness. You really only falter here once. When you wrote:
Let’s look at it from another perspective because I know some people (and Fafaroo has already done so) are going to say that the families of the victims of that 2% would certainly want such laws passed.
You clearly missed my comment:
I’m perfectly willing to concede that the solution — requiring everyone who sells a gun to run a background check — maybe too onerous given the stats on crimes in which guns so-purchased are implicated.
Of course the drunk driving analogy is a classic of the anti-gun control crowd so I can see why you would have been tempted to throw it in anyway as an nod to the valiant hacks who have come before. I nice final tribute as you go for the gold.
And why were we humble creatures treated to such a magisterial display? Because in your first post you unthinkingly regurgitated some right wing bullshit — “There is no gun show loophole.” — and you simply can’t admit you were one hundred percent wrong. It’s a truly amazing thing to behold a conservative rise so surely to the task of defending his brain from reality. Thanks, Jay. It’s been a real treat.
Limiting the easy sale of guns to felons forces average citizens to break the law? That’s the stuff of right wing champions, man. My hat is off to you
And your reading comprehension is in serious need of improvement.
Fafaroo, your ad hominem, red herrings and other various forms of logical fallacies are noted. Hopefully, somebody with some intellectual honesty will step up to address the points I have made.
Hopefully, somebody with some intellectual honesty will step up to address the points I have made.
Only once someone who is being intellectually honest makes them.
Typing glitch truncated my name on that last post from “Se” and I insist on signing my words.
That post (viewable as soon as it gets thru moderation) was by me.
- Sean
Do we have some sort of epidemic of crimes being committed as a result of private sales of firearms? No.
Gang members and drug addicts excluded, of course.
Ok, so…Private sales of guns are legal, unless one of the parties fails the letter of the law, in which case they are not legal.
Yes and we all know that once somebody doesn’t pass a background check, that person is surrounded by a netherworld forcefield that prevents them from acquiring a gun any other way.
Exactly my point.
I don’t see why it is such a black & white world with you, Jay. Any proposal aimed at reducing the number of guns obtained illegally somehow becomes a burden on law abiding citizens? Why is it such a burden? If a law-abiding citizen goes through the hoops to make sure he/she obtained their weapon legally, I think, would be more confident, knowing that they “abided” by the law.
Your drunk driving analogy is flawed, however, because, just as we all know people shouldn’t drive when they’ve had a few, we also know that one shouldn’t be messing with guns while drunk also.
A gun is an inanimate object, same as a car. Both have the potential to cause pleasure (of a sort) or misery, depending on the user.
I just want to know why should it be easier to get a weapon than a car?
Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with a firearm are traced back to a sale at a gun show.
Fair enough. How many can’t be traced at all?
Any proposal aimed at reducing the number of guns obtained illegally somehow becomes a burden on law abiding citizens?
I didn’t say any proposal, but closing the non-existent “gun show loophole” certainly would.
If a law-abiding citizen goes through the hoops to make sure he/she obtained their weapon legally, I think, would be more confident, knowing that they “abided” by the law.
Because a person who is a law abiding citizen doesn’t need to go through some process to tell them they are. Do you call the motor vehicle department every time you drive your car to determine you’re legally allowed to drive?
Your drunk driving analogy is flawed, however, be