Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Hotwire]

The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record keeping.

From this article....

The vast majority of people who either visit or sell guns at gun shows are law-abiding citizens and dealers.

However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms , and Explosives (ATF) reports that 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal gun trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows.

This multi-state undercover investigation exposed how easy it is for criminals to buy guns at gun shows.

The City of New York investigated 7 gun shows in 3 states involving buys from 47 gun sellers using hidden cameras.

The investigation videos showed that 35 out of 47 sellers approached by undercover investigators at these gun shows sold guns illegally.

THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE
The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record keeping.

While private sellers are exempted from running background checks no matter where they make the sale, this loophole is associated with gun shows because they are the largest and most central marketplace where these private sellers can easily connect with purchasers who wish to avoid detection.

SELLING TO PROHIBITED PURCHASERS
Even though they are not required to perform background checks, private dealers cannot sell to someone who they have reason to believe is prohibited from buying guns.

Investigators attempted to purchase guns after telling private sellers that they probably could not pass a background check.
19 of 30 private sellers — 63% — broke the law by completing a sale to a buyer who they thought could not pass a background check.


Source: http://www.gunshowundercover2009.org/
NYC.gov

I'm going to quote this because, it really points out why private sellers should be required to preform background checks on potential buyers. Sure, criminals will still find a way to get a gun BUT, putting mandatory background checks on all gun sales would cut off a couple options for them.

And, I'm really tired of the argument that, "laws do nothing so there's no reason to makes laws!" Webfoot, that's the point OP was trying to make. He wasn't trying to call you heartless, he was showing you that that line of logic fails miserably when applied to other crimes.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'm going to quote this because, it really points out why private sellers should be required to preform background checks on potential buyers. Sure, criminals will still find a way to get a gun BUT, putting mandatory background checks on all gun sales would cut off a couple options for them.

And, I'm really tired of the argument that, "laws do nothing so there's no reason to makes laws!" Webfoot, that's the point OP was trying to make. He wasn't trying to call you heartless, he was showing you that that line of logic fails miserably when applied to other crimes.

Yup.

You often hear a variation of this when people say "see, those authorities had to arrest [this mobster] on tax evasion because he wasn't actually breaking any laws". Kind of true, actually. The mobsters knew how to *appear* to be following the law, usually through the use of some sort of intermediary which made it hard to link them directly to things like theft. However a great way to determine someone has a ton of off-the-books income is to track their purchases and then hit them up for taxes. Hence, tax evasion.

So that's the thing, if you have sensible legislation you can hit those breaking a law, but if it's watered down with a ton of loopholes, or completely defunded, or the agency responsible is stripped of all it's teeth then it will accomplish absolutely nothing and everyone contributing to the problem will continue their consequence-free existence.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Somebody has to buy the gun first that gets resold and I am pretty sure that all the guns that are sold at guns shows at some point were originally bought somewhere, which intern that money goes to gun manufacturers.

I think you severely over-estimate the use of the loop hole. The loop hole really has no effect on overall gun sales, especially considering most private sellers at shows are selling older, vintage/collectible guns. If you were to say that the threat of stricter laws creates profits for gun manufacturers, as people go out and buy what they fear might be banned, then yes, I would definitely agree with you. The loop hole doesn't really have anything to do with it.

 

[Hotwire]

I think you severely over-estimate the use of the loop hole. The loop hole really has no effect on overall gun sales, especially considering most private sellers at shows are selling older, vintage/collectible guns. If you were to say that the threat of stricter laws creates profits for gun manufacturers, as people go out and buy what they fear might be banned, then yes, I would definitely agree with you. The loop hole doesn't really have anything to do with it.

No a good enough reason to leave it open. Go reread Kelly's post. I even quoted it a couple posts back. Then tell me why those numbers are perfectly acceptable and should not serve as a reason to close these loopholes?

Also, in the simplest terms possible, why should ANYONE be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I mean, hell, they perform a background check on you if you want to flip burgers and McDonald's.

 

[Spider-Who?]

No a good enough reason to leave it open. Go reread Kelly's post. I even quoted it a couple posts back. Then tell me why those numbers are perfectly acceptable and should not serve as a reason to close these loopholes?

Also, in the simplest terms possible, why should ANYONE be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

Um.....please point to where in my post I said ANY thing about closing or not closing the loop hole. Where did I say ANY thing about the legality of background checks or how laws would affect them?

I'm actually FOR background checks in private sales, especially at gun shows. I think it's irresponsible not to have them. The only caveat is that I don't think they should be required between family members/inheritance.

Read my post again. I was commenting solely on a posters opinion that loop holes are a big money making venture for manufacturers.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Um.....please point to where in my post I said ANY thing about closing or not closing the loop hole. Where did I say ANY thing about the legality of background checks or how laws would affect them?

I'm actually FOR background checks in private sales, especially at gun shows. I think it's irresponsible not to have them. The only caveat is that I don't think they should be required between family members/inheritance.

Read my post again. I was commenting solely on a posters opinion that loop holes are a big money making venture for manufacturers.

Well, that much is true, they are. If we're strictly talking bottom line, then closing a loophole like that will cut into a gun manufacturers profits either directly or indirectly. There are very few regulations that I could think of that won't cut into a profit margin somehow.

 

[Hotwire]

The loop hole really has no effect on overall gun sales, especially considering most private sellers at shows are selling older, vintage/collectible guns.

I think it was that line right there that gave me that impression.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

In response to these Spider-Who? posts: It seems to me even if you're someone who would claim to be satisfied with our current laws regarding background checks and loopholes of these sorts then you'd at least have to admit they are fairly well neutered. Doesn't seem like even very basic regulations are being enforced.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I think that people who claim "very basic regulations" aren't enforced really need to take a step back and look at real life facts, as opposed to anti-gunners saying "guns are under-enforced!" or hell, go out and try to buy some guns. There are over 20,000 laws concerning guns. I'd suggest anyone who thinks that these 20,000 gun laws aren't worth much try reading two dozen of them. Are all of them perfect? No. Are any of them asinine? In my opinion, yes. But like with any laws, we have to reevaluate them from time to time. I won't argue that.

Companies that sell guns follow the rules. If they didn't they'd loose their FFL licenses, get fined, and even go to jail. Talk to any gun shop owner and they'll tell you they are heavily regulated and the laws strictly enforced. Yes, private sales are not hindered by some of these laws (background checks), but that doesn't mean I can go down the road and buy a fully automatic rifle from Old Man Sanders, because those are still illegal, regardless of who you are or how you sell/buy it.

I agree with anyone who says that private sales should be done through an FFL dealer. I agree with anyone who says that mental health should come into play in regards to gun ownership. Hell, I'll even agree that you shouldn't be able to purchase ammo online (with out it going through your local FFL dealer with whom you have to complete the purchase in person as you currently have to do with firearms).

The current enforcement of gun laws isn't the problem, IMO.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

How so? The agency responsible for enforcing these regulations doesn't even have a fully committed director and is complete underfunded (might even be reasonable to say 'barely funded at all').

 

[dnno1]

...And how are the cops/authorities going to keep track of every private gun transaction? There are already so many going on between legal, non-violent gun owners that they'd likely continue even without a background check. I'd also suspect that even if a law was passed, there'd be no noticeable downward trend in gun violence and that many law abiding citizens would be caught violating the law without having any malicious intent...

Oh, come on. We are keeping track of the private sale of automobiles (for decades now), and there are over 250 million registered vehicles in this country. As far as the trend in gun violence goes, it would all depend on how extensive the federal, state, and local governments want to carry the regulations. With automobiles, we have steadily reduced the number of car crash fatalities with the regulations that have been put in place through the years, so that should be an indication that it can be done.

 

[Kelly]

I think the question asked up there is the base to all of this...

Why would anyone not want ALL GUNS SOLD with background checks?

I'm not sure why that would even be a debate...

 

[Hotwire]

I think the question asked up there is the base to all of this...

Why would anyone not want ALL GUNS SOLD with background checks?

I'm not sure why that would even be a debate...

I asked that same question. It went unanswered.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think the question asked up there is the base to all of this...

Why would anyone not want ALL GUNS SOLD with background checks?

I'm not sure why that would even be a debate...

I think that's a good question. Often with laws you want to know that, if the law did play out "perfectly" (because it never will) would the end result be desirable. I think here the answer is plainly "yes" because for those who truly have nothing to hide when looking to acquire a gun would not be affected.

 

[terry78]

Some claim its a slippery slope.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Some claim its a slippery slope.

There's a reason they call "slippery slope" arguments logical fallacies.

 

[Paradoxium]

Glorious news comrades.

Jesse Jackson tells it like it is. Semi Automatics can "shoot down airplanes" and "blow up rail roads". We need this man to be the face and leader of gun control.

 

[Theweepeople]

I think it's more important to mandate strict laws for box cutter distribution first. After all they were the catalyst for the worst tragedy in American history.

 

[SV Fan]

Why would anyone not want ALL GUNS SOLD with background checks?

here is my guess

1. Gun Manufacturers - will probably slightly cut down on gun sales $$$$$

2. Survivalists - They don't want to be tagged by the government(they figure if it's tagged by the government that person X owns a certain amount of guns, when the government comes out to take the guns they have a list where to go).

3. Lazy People - could care less about the survivalist reasoning(and most likely find it ridiculous like others), don't see much issue with current gun laws, but they just don't want to go through the hassle of doing extra paperwork

 

[dnno1]

I think it's more important to mandate strict laws for box cutter distribution first. After all they were the catalyst for the worst tragedy in American history.

They already did. You can no longer carry them on board airplanes or in court houses anymore.

 

[dnno1]

 

[samsnee]

I don't think the Obama is fake, but to be fair, in the Obama one, it looks like he is shooting straight ahead (thus the smoke from the gun) whereas in the bottom one, he could be waiting for the skeet to get launched.

 

[Kable24]

 

[Bill]

They already did. You can no longer carry them on board airplanes or in court houses anymore.

You couldn't do so before either.