Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
For starters, all those states that have pretty lax laws requiring gun purchases would have to adhere to having all customers get that license and registration. Criminals like as little oversight as possible....which is why you have such a thing as the "Iron Pipeline" for guns used in crimes in NYC, which has very strict gun laws. It would also put the kibosh on the gun show loopholes. Not perfect and won't stop all illegal exchanges/purchases/transfers, but it sure as hell would put a serious crimp in them.

there is no gun show loophole. we've had this conversation before.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
But that does not change the fact that in state with CCW, you had none to stop this guy. And if there were some who would have tried, how would the cops tell the difference between bad guy and good guy in a panic crowd fleeing shootout?

people need to make a decision, you either believe in a persons ability to defend themselves, or you don't. If you don't believe that people have a basic and fundamental right to self defense, this conversation is dead and so are millions of others, eventually. If you DO believe a person has the right to defend themselves, then you need to force law enforcement to be less trigger happy.

1. yes, and you are still in denial....playing word games in lieu of the reality: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...gun-show-loop/

2. You can blow all the smoke you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what I said there.

[SmarterthanYou]

1. yes, and you are still in denial....playing word games in lieu of the reality: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...gun-show-loop/

your link is playing word games. if something is specifically allowed, by law, meaning that those exact words in there state 'private sales are exempted', then it's not a loophole.

2. You can blow all the smoke you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what I said there.

anyone can logically and factually fault you for your misstatement. start supporting armed self defense, watch things change.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
1. yes, and you are still in denial....playing word games in lieu of the reality: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...gun-show-loop/

your link is playing word games. if something is specifically allowed, by law, meaning that those exact words in there state 'private sales are exempted', then it's not a loophole.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
2. You can blow all the smoke you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what I said there.

anyone can logically and factually fault you for your misstatement. start supporting armed self defense, watch things change.

- As usual, your myopic viewpoint favors your personal desire. Here's what you DON'T want to deal with from the link: Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check.

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."
Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.

Nationwide, how many gun sellers are not required to hold a license is difficult to determine. Some of the research we found about the percentage of gun show vendors who are licensed was outdated or limited in scope.
A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)

"Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said.
Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.
"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.

- More smoke from you.

[SmarterthanYou]

- As usual, your myopic viewpoint favors your personal desire. Here's what you DON'T want to deal with from the link: Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check.

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."
Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.

Nationwide, how many gun sellers are not required to hold a license is difficult to determine. Some of the research we found about the percentage of gun show vendors who are licensed was outdated or limited in scope.
A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)

"Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said.
Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.
"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.

- More smoke from you.

you proved my point in a most excellent manner. thank you. there is no gun show loophole. In fact, there is no loophole, at all.

[RB 60]

you proved my point in a most excellent manner. thank you. there is no gun show loophole. In fact, there is no loophole, at all.

These people who call it a loophole want private sales (now transfers), even between family, friends and known responsible individuals, to perform background checks.

Personally, every gun I've bought or sold was with responsible people. I did the background check for them, no need for another one.

[Rune]

Gun control, rectum breath.

I don't support gun control, retard.

[Darth Omar]

I've said it before and I'll say it again....if we treat all gun purchases like this country treats car purchases, you'd have a better tracking system and mandatory class to pass in handling the item. Won't stop all nuts and evil doers, but it'll cut down the number of incidences.

Oh, and for all the 2nd Amendment/NRA/pro-gun lobby bullhorns: where were all the CCW heroes that you people swore would save the day at these tragedies? It was in Texas, ya know.

Are you talking about the mass shooting in Philly yesterday?

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
- As usual, your myopic viewpoint favors your personal desire. Here's what you DON'T want to deal with from the link: Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check.

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."
Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.

Nationwide, how many gun sellers are not required to hold a license is difficult to determine. Some of the research we found about the percentage of gun show vendors who are licensed was outdated or limited in scope.
A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)

"Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said.
Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.
"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.

- More smoke from you.



you proved my point in a most excellent manner. thank you. there is no gun show loophole. In fact, there is no loophole, at all.

As you can see, dear reader, STY has a reading problem...he just ignores what doesn't fit his beliefs. All one has to do is read carefully and comprehensively to see how one has to couch their analysis in order to deny the loophole. I've highlighted where it shows how both sides concede how the language of the law allows for the label. STY is insipidly stubborn, as most oathers/threepers/libertarians are.

[Taichiliberal]

Are you talking about the mass shooting in Philly yesterday?

Nope, I was referring to El Paso and Dayton at the time.

[Taichiliberal]

These people who call it a loophole want private sales (now transfers), even between family, friends and known responsible individuals, to perform background checks.

Personally, every gun I've bought or sold was with responsible people. I did the background check for them, no need for another one.

Yeah, and even if I were to believe you, what would be the harm in passing registration of those weapons like you do when you sell a car to someone?

[SmarterthanYou]

As you can see, dear reader, STY has a reading problem...he just ignores what doesn't fit his beliefs. All one has to do is read carefully and comprehensively to see how one has to couch their analysis in order to deny the loophole. I've highlighted where it shows how both sides concede how the language of the law allows for the label. STY is insipidly stubborn, as most oathers/threepers/libertarians are.

you're talking about yourself again...........it doesn't matter about both sides conception of the law if the law SPECIFICALLY STATES that private sales are exempt. if there's any smoke blowing going on, its coming from you, charlie.

[RB 60]

Yeah, and even if I were to believe you, what would be the harm in passing registration of those weapons like you do when you sell a car to someone?

It's no one's business what I have.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As you can see, dear reader, STY has a reading problem...he just ignores what doesn't fit his beliefs. All one has to do is read carefully and comprehensively to see how one has to couch their analysis in order to deny the loophole. I've highlighted where it shows how both sides concede how the language of the law allows for the label. STY is insipidly stubborn, as most oathers/threepers/libertarians are.

you're talking about yourself again...........it doesn't matter about both sides conception of the law if the law SPECIFICALLY STATES that private sales are exempt. if there's any smoke blowing going on, its coming from you, charlie.

Your intellectual myopia is to be pitied, as I hope any lawyer you engage doesn't have your insipidly stubborn problem with reading comprehension...and if I'm "talking to myself again", how is it that YOU are responding.

I swear, just when I think you can't get any dumber, you surprise me.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, and even if I were to believe you, what would be the harm in passing registration of those weapons like you do when you sell a car to someone?

It's no one's business what I have.

Really? Then you don't pay taxes? Don't draw a paycheck? Don't own a car? You have absolutely no paper trail in any part of your life? You don't use any public facilities or utilities?

Yeah, I thought so. Read your Constitution, bunky. Congress has the power to make laws...and the laws have stated and can state what you can and can't do in this country. So again, if the AWB was in play, those weapons used in El Paso and Dayton would not have been available. Period. And those who have them prior to the law's inaction can keep them …. registered.

So what the hell are you afraid of? Obviously, you don't give a damn how many are killed so long as you have your pacifier.

[RB 60]

Really? Then you don't pay taxes? Don't draw a paycheck? Don't own a car? You have absolutely no paper trail in any part of your life? You don't use any public facilities or utilities?

Yeah, I thought so. Read your Constitution, bunky. Congress has the power to make laws...and the laws have stated and can state what you can and can't do in this country. So again, if the AWB was in play, those weapons used in El Paso and Dayton would not have been available. Period. And those who have them prior to the law's inaction can keep them …. registered.

So what the hell are you afraid of? Obviously, you don't give a damn how many are killed so long as you have your pacifier.

That is a pile of psychobabble.

I know what the Constitution says, it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You have no clue what the AWB even said, do you? It merely stopped the importation of certain
semi-auto firearms, nothing about limiting the domestic manufacture or sales in this country. DUH!

Furthermore, just how would registering a firearm stop anyone who wishes to break current laws?
I have 5 registered firearms, 3 are through the Army, one through the Navy, and one handgun.
The rest are unregistered and they are going to stay that way. Period. End of conversation.

Do you think you are going to stop and ask some nut case while he's shooting people to stop so
you can get the serial number off of the gun and see who it's registered to? If that nut case is going
to shoot people, I highly doubt having it registered is going to stop them. What makes you think it will?

I am afraid of nothing. I do give a damn that there are assholes who use firearms in the commission of
crimes. Registering my firearms will not stop anyone else who wishes to use their firearms criminally.