Reality check for Gunners

[Taichiliberal]

sorry to disappoint you, but the NYC commissioner is lying. The FBI says less than 1% of crime guns are bought at gun shows.

FBI report link

1. Your source material is over 10 years old and DOES NOT deal directly with what the NYC Police Commissioner proved with his stats regarding Virginia.

2. Note that the final stats regarding where criminals get their guns correlates with recent information. Where do you think the criminals get the guns to sell illegally to others? Where do you think the family members get the guns to give to criminals from? The video of the gun show shows 19 dealers selling guns to one person who tells them it's for my friend here who doesn't have the proper credentials. Also, in the last few years Commisioner Kelly has pointed out how in some states multiple weapons can be obtained by folks with no criminal record who are associated with criminals. Bottom line: you pulled a typical gunner tactic by being myopic in your view of ALL the information, and then slandering folk with your incomplete and flawed analysis. A comprehensive look at the situation shows that in no way is the information I put forth invalid.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The problem is that you have an industry that makes serious profit in producing and selling weapons....and therefore they must push a constant climate of fear to stimulate sales. Yes, there is crime in America, which is why people own guns. What the manufacturers do is consistently push the spectre of a fascist gov't just around the bend that will subjugate everyone as soon as all the guns are taken away.

Somewhat true, thought the constant perception of danger has more to do with media constantly living up every instance of violence, refusing to relent as it raises ratings. Do gun companies pander to fear? Somewhat, but numbers don't support that too much. Theoretically you only need 1 gun for home protection, and the life of your average gun, properly maintained, is at least a century, so there are more than enough guns to satisfy THAT particular pool.

As for the fear of government... I think that the government does a fine enough job at creating that fear. Do gun companies profit from it? You bet your ass they do, look at the price raise in handguns and EBRs since Sept 08. But I don't believe they focus on fear for motives of profit. Many company owners are dedicated towards RKBA and are just voicing their concerns about over reaching government.

 

[WinterBorn]

No one was asking them to....the point of contention was that 19 of the 30 gun show dealers DID NOT follow the simple rules for specific credentials from the buyers. Bottom line: they cheated (whether for sheer profit or some ideology is up to question)....and that dishonesty may put weapons into the hands of criminals...weapons that cannot be traced to them as owners.

Then there is no gun show loophole. If its against the law, then prosecute the gun dealers who violated the law.

They have to have clear records about every firearm they order from the manufacturers. They either have the sales records (including the background check) or they have the firearm. Its very easy to check and most FFL holders are checked by ATF at some point.

I just rechecked the article, and they did NOT catch FFL holders in any improper sales.

"Those states are among the many that permit private unlicensed dealers, known as "occasional sellers," to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting background checks.

These are private citizens who fork out $100 or so for a table at a gun show. It is the same as taking an ad out in a newspaper and selling a gun. I bought my deer rifle from someone who put an ad in the paper.



When you say "Wrong. The loophole was clearly demonstrated in the video.....if you hit the right dealer at a gun show, he can pull stunts that will give guns to those who do not have the proper credentials, and NOT be readily accountable to authorities about it. That is against the law. Period." it shows you do not know the law or the circumstances of the sales.

I have sold 2 rifles to private citizens, and bought one from a private citizen. Those are not gun dealers. They do not hold a FFL to sell guns, they are selling their personal guns. Again, it is the same as the difference between a car dealership and someone selling their personal car. Well, except in that case the person driving the car is held responsible for any crimes they commit with the car.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wrong. The loophole was clearly demonstrated in the video.....if you hit the right dealer at a gun show, he can pull stunts that will give guns to those who do not have the proper credentials, and NOT be readily accountable to authorities about it. That is against the law. Period.

that isn't a loophole, that's an outright violation of the law. a dealer MUST run the background check. If these videos are showing DEALERS sell without doing the NICS check, then all they are doing is showing dealers break the law. they aren't showing a 'loophole'.

 

[Lowaicue]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, it's not the ownership that is the big deal, it's the State and Federal regulation that has everyone up in arms.

There are those who want total banning of weapons for citizenry not in law enforcement, military, national guard or private security. Then there are those who want absolutely no gov't regulation as to what type or how many weapons they own, where they can carry them and to whom they can sell them to.

In the middle are folk like me, who pretty much is happy with anyone who passes a background check and can afford one, and with the legal process that can challenge excessive oppressive gun laws or excessive lax gun laws.

And the beat goes on.



You're wrong to characterize all gun owners as slack jawed yokels.
There is nothing wrong with owning a weapon for home protection. The problem is that you have an industry that makes serious profit in producing and selling weapons....and therefore they must push a constant climate of fear to stimulate sales. Yes, there is crime in America, which is why people own guns. What the manufacturers do is consistently push the spectre of a fascist gov't just around the bend that will subjugate everyone as soon as all the guns are taken away.

Americans live in an environment of checks & balances to keep everyone honest (or at least we try to). For better or worse, guns are a means to insure to some degree that honesty. Unfortunately, many want to treat the situation like it's still the frontier West or turn of the century East...and they want the next best thing to military issue weapons. That is an extreme, while others want total elimination of guns from the general populace, with only military and police (and private security) having weapons. That is another extreme....for in a nation of diverse cultures and races competing for limited resources and opportunities, there is always going to be those that throw the rule book out the window.

What I always find fascinating is that gunners always point to "liberals" as a major threat to their freedom....while all but ignoring the conservative corporate entities that are consistently making themselves immune from public criticism or recourse while taking public money. Oh well, the beat goes on.

You may well be right and I have not met many American gun owners.
However, every one I have met has been, to use your phrase, a slack jawed yokel. The other characteristic they hold in common is a complete ignorance and disbelief in the non American views of a gun owning society.
Sorry but there it is.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Then there is no gun show loophole. If its against the law, then prosecute the gun dealers who violated the law. Ahh, but if you remember that the protest is that gun show dealers should be held responsible for background, checks, etc. That's the argument used to resist further legislation for accountability at these gun shows. Which is why you had 19 guys bend the rules. As straight up shop owners, they wouldn't have tried that crap.

They have to have clear records about every firearm they order from the manufacturers. They either have the sales records (including the background check) or they have the firearm. Its very easy to check and most FFL holders are checked by ATF at some point.

No one is questioning the legitimacy of the guns the dealers had....it's the 19 who sold them to those who were ducking the rules and subsequently the law. The video describes what they did was wrong....what you state here is moot and does not change what happened or the ramifications of it or what I posted.

I just rechecked the article, and they did NOT catch FFL holders in any improper sales.

That's nice....so why don't we just pass laws that forbid non-FFL holders as you say, from these gun shows? Somehow, I don't think you'll go for that...and again, that doesn't change what happened or the ramifications or what I posted..

"Those states are among the many that permit private unlicensed dealers, known as "occasional sellers," to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting background checks.

These are private citizens who fork out $100 or so for a table at a gun show. It is the same as taking an ad out in a newspaper and selling a gun. I bought my deer rifle from someone who put an ad in the paper.

And your point? Because that doesn't change what went down or my subsequent postings.


When you say "Wrong. The loophole was clearly demonstrated in the video.....if you hit the right dealer at a gun show, he can pull stunts that will give guns to those who do not have the proper credentials, and NOT be readily accountable to authorities about it. That is against the law. Period." it shows you do not know the law or the circumstances of the sales.

Spare me the preamble and get to the point next time, because you usually just rehash a moot point that changes nothing.

I have sold 2 rifles to private citizens, and bought one from a private citizen. Those are not gun dealers. They do not hold a FFL to sell guns, they are selling their personal guns. Again, it is the same as the difference between a car dealership and someone selling their personal car. Well, except in that case the person driving the car is held responsible for any crimes they commit with the car.

And you leave out the little detail that if there is no record that you are buying a car for someone else, with everyone involved john hancock on the offical papers, then you are doubly screwed, as well as the person driving the car. Again, your analogy is moot, does not change what happened or what I subsequently posted. The video is proof as to one avenue of illegally obtaining guns by criminal elements. Period. It's part of the problem scenario that Commisioner Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg (whom I'm no fan of, in most cases) point out as to how criminals go to events and states where it's easier to get guns on the sly.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You may well be right and I have not met many American gun owners.
However, every one I have met has been, to use your phrase, a slack jawed yokel. The other characteristic they hold in common is a complete ignorance and disbelief in the non American views of a gun owning society.
Sorry but there it is.

Hey, I get it...it's your experience. I'm just saying that your viewpoint is limited by your experience on the subject. I've had nothing but positive experiences with folk from the UK...but I wouldn't bank my general viewpoint of them based on my limited experiences.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Wrong. The loophole was clearly demonstrated in the video.....if you hit the right dealer at a gun show, he can pull stunts that will give guns to those who do not have the proper credentials, and NOT be readily accountable to authorities about it. That is against the law. Period.

that isn't a loophole, that's an outright violation of the law. a dealer MUST run the background check. If these videos are showing DEALERS sell without doing the NICS check, then all they are doing is showing dealers break the law. they aren't showing a 'loophole'.

The loophole is that such gun shows exist that create an opportunity for such dealers to commit such crimes. I was just told that the dealers in question did NOT have certain licenses....my question is, why not make a rule that all do? If I'm going to illegally obtain a gun through "legal" methods, I'm going to look for the loophole, and the gun show provides that loophole.... technically the owners/promoters of the gunshow are just as liable as the crooked dealer if those 19 guns are tied to any crimes in the near future.

 

[Lowaicue]

Hey, I get it...it's your experience. I'm just saying that your viewpoint is limited by your experience on the subject. I've had nothing but positive experiences with folk from the UK...but I wouldn't bank my general viewpoint of them based on my limited experiences.

I'd like to know who you have met from the UK...!! Positive experiences?? Well, maybe they have changed since I left. Watching a reality show contestant unable to place country labels on a map of the world did not convince me that slack jawedness was exclusively American although legal gun ownership obviously is.
Oh yes and the statement, 'we have a queen because her husband, the king, died.'
Perhaps it is modern education because a middle management employee of a global company here in HK when asked 'In which part of India is your Indian office?' answered by saying something like, 'It's in India. Isn't India a city?'

Problem is that if you live your life on the sensible side of the street you may have comforting safety but you might also just die of boredom, so there is positive entertainment value in calling Americans slack jawed knuckle draggers!

 

[WinterBorn]

And you leave out the little detail that if there is no record that you are buying a car for someone else, with everyone involved john hancock on the offical papers, then you are doubly screwed, as well as the person driving the car. Again, your analogy is moot, does not change what happened or what I subsequently posted. The video is proof as to one avenue of illegally obtaining guns by criminal elements. Period. It's part of the problem scenario that Commisioner Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg (whom I'm no fan of, in most cases) point out as to how criminals go to events and states where it's easier to get guns on the sly.

You keep trying to ignore what anyone says. What I posted was valid. If it was a gun dealer (holder of an FFL) then what happened was illegal. So that does not qualify as a loophole. If it was a private citizen selling guns, it is the same as me putting an ad in the paper and selling a gun. This is not a moot point, it is a valid comparison.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The loophole is that such gun shows exist that create an opportunity for such dealers to commit such crimes. I was just told that the dealers in question did NOT have certain licenses....my question is, why not make a rule that all do? If I'm going to illegally obtain a gun through "legal" methods, I'm going to look for the loophole, and the gun show provides that loophole.... technically the owners/promoters of the gunshow are just as liable as the crooked dealer if those 19 guns are tied to any crimes in the near future.

That opportunity still exists regardless of a gun show. With a FFL I can still sell any gun I want legally so long as A) I do not make a living selling guns, as in my main source of income can not be through the selling of firearms, and B) I have a reasonable certainty that the gun and its owner comply with my states/federal law.

So as you can see this 'loophole' exists 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year at every location in America.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You keep trying to ignore what anyone says. What I posted was valid. If it was a gun dealer (holder of an FFL) then what happened was illegal. So that does not qualify as a loophole. If it was a private citizen selling guns, it is the same as me putting an ad in the paper and selling a gun. This is not a moot point, it is a valid comparison.

I saw that little tidbit about not having certain licences and realized that once again he has do idea about what he's talking about.
Because the video called them dealers, he just jumped on the bandwagon and assumed they were dealers.

It does appear that the ones in question are just private citizens, exercising their right to sell their own property.

 

[Canceled1]

I saw that little tidbit about not having certain licences and realized that once again he has do idea about what he's talking about.
Because the video called them dealers, he just jumped on the bandwagon and assumed they were dealers.

It does appear that the ones in question are just private citizens, exercising their right to sell their own property.

Whinny is the only poster I know who can disenfranchise the very people who politically should be on his side.

He is an equal opportunity pain in the ass and I for one am glad to see he does it to those of his own political persuasion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually it's neither the ownership nor State regulations that is the problem.
It is the immature, brainless mindset that says:

'I gaht mah rahts an' mah rahts ur ta own a gurn. So ahm gonna own a gurn an ahm gonna be jes lahk Jahn Wayne, an there ain't nuthin ye can do te staap me.'

And apart from shooting every gun owner you will stop neither the guns, the murders or the stupidity.

What an ignorant caricature. We GET it... you don't like the US. Thanks.

Tell us how great it is in China again...

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The loophole is that such gun shows exist that create an opportunity for such dealers to commit such crimes. I was just told that the dealers in question did NOT have certain licenses....my question is, why not make a rule that all do? If I'm going to illegally obtain a gun through "legal" methods, I'm going to look for the loophole, and the gun show provides that loophole.... technically the owners/promoters of the gunshow are just as liable as the crooked dealer if those 19 guns are tied to any crimes in the near future.

first, you seem to be confusing the terms 'dealer' with 'private seller'. If the seller does not have an FFL license and is only selling one or two guns, then they are not a dealer and are completely within not only the law, but their constitutional right to contract by selling their own private property to another. Now, if the seller is selling a dozen different guns at one show through his booth, and doesn't have a license, then he is in technical violation of several federal laws and should be prosecuted.

as to your comment of
"I was just told that the dealers in question did NOT have certain licenses....my question is, why not make a rule that all do?"
Prior to the 94 NICS law, this was required. If I wanted to sell guns out of my house, I had to have the FFL. Didn't matter if I sold one gun a month or one gun a week, but FFL licenses weren't expensive back then either. In their rush to 'do something' about guns, the democrats and bradys demanded all sorts of changes to existing federal gun laws and in their desire to implement their wants, they accepted certain compromises. One of those wants was to eliminate FFL licenses for people selling out of their homes, their compromise was to not force background NICS checks for private sales.

technically the owners/promoters of the gunshow are just as liable as the crooked dealer if those 19 guns are tied to any crimes in the near future.
no, technically they aren't. gun show promoters are no more responsible for illegal gun sales by dealers than a car dealer who sells a car to someone without a drivers license and that person then does a hit and run.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You may well be right and I have not met many American gun owners.
However, every one I have met has been, to use your phrase, a slack jawed yokel. The other characteristic they hold in common is a complete ignorance and disbelief in the non American views of a gun owning society.
Sorry but there it is.

Similar to your complete ignorance and disbelief in the American views of gun ownership?

Hello pot... this is kettle....

 

[Taichiliberal]

That opportunity still exists regardless of a gun show. With a FFL I can still sell any gun I want legally so long as A) I do not make a living selling guns, as in my main source of income can not be through the selling of firearms, and B) I have a reasonable certainty that the gun and its owner comply with my states/federal law.

So as you can see this 'loophole' exists 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year at every location in America.

Thanks...not only does that sure up my point, but it's a pretty damning piece of evidence against those who constantly fighting for reductions in gun control legislation across the board....because item B scares the hell out of me...and is an excuse that the 19 jokers would likely use, given the video footage.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The loophole is that such gun shows exist that create an opportunity for such dealers to commit such crimes. I was just told that the dealers in question did NOT have certain licenses....my question is, why not make a rule that all do? If I'm going to illegally obtain a gun through "legal" methods, I'm going to look for the loophole, and the gun show provides that loophole.... technically the owners/promoters of the gunshow are just as liable as the crooked dealer if those 19 guns are tied to any crimes in the near future.

first, you seem to be confusing the terms 'dealer' with 'private seller'. If the seller does not have an FFL license and is only selling one or two guns, then they are not a dealer and are completely within not only the law, but their constitutional right to contract by selling their own private property to another. Now, if the seller is selling a dozen different guns at one show through his booth, and doesn't have a license, then he is in technical violation of several federal laws and should be prosecuted.

First off, I wasn't about what I was originally discussing...the FFL license scenario was introduced by another poster in and effort to what, diffuse the damning evidence of the video and it's implications? Well, it doesn't. Gunners always feel that rattling off technical explanations alieviates the documentations of crimes directly related to abuse of lax gun laws and legal loopholes within said laws.....a failed premise on their part.

as to your comment of
"I was just told that the dealers in question did NOT have certain licenses....my question is, why not make a rule that all do?"
Prior to the 94 NICS law, this was required. If I wanted to sell guns out of my house, I had to have the FFL. Didn't matter if I sold one gun a month or one gun a week, but FFL licenses weren't expensive back then either. In their rush to 'do something' about guns, the democrats and bradys demanded all sorts of changes to existing federal gun laws and in their desire to implement their wants, they accepted certain compromises. One of those wants was to eliminate FFL licenses for people selling out of their homes, their compromise was to not force background NICS checks for private sales.

The key word here is "compromise"....which has resulted in a loophole, as CaptBillytheKid explained to me. The Brady Bill did not hamper gun shows "No state requirement that a Brady criminal background check be done on people buying guns at gun shows if they are sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime."[/COLOR]

technically the owners/promoters of the gunshow are just as liable as the crooked dealer if those 19 guns are tied to any crimes in the near future.
no, technically they aren't. gun show promoters are no more responsible for illegal gun sales by dealers than a car dealer who sells a car to someone without a drivers license and that person then does a hit and run.

Actually, it depends on what State you're in to buy a car without driver's license. But you are partly right on that point, and I am partly wrong.

As for gun shows being liable, neither you or I have a lock on that one. Case in point: Pavlides v. Niles Gun Show, Inc., No. CA 9443, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 759 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb.14,1994)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-20335.html

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Thanks...not only does that sure up my point, but it's a pretty damning piece of evidence against those who constantly fighting for reductions in gun control legislation across the board....because item B scares the hell out of me...and is an excuse that the 19 jokers would likely use, given the video footage.

Uhhh I'm pretty sure there's no 'reasonable certainty' in most of those buyers statements, so your point is still invalid.

 

[Lowaicue]

What an ignorant caricature. We GET it... you don't like the US. Thanks.

Tell us how great it is in China again...

Sometimes I make the mistake that some Americans have the intelligence to understand and the education to use what they understand.
I unequivocally apologise for that mistake.

To clarify: I do NOT dislike the United States. I do NOT dislike Americans per se. I DO dislike stupid people. I DO dislike people who preach peace but who are proud of killing their fellow humans. I DO dislike people who think that because they have a flag on a stick that some god or other has given them priviledges that the rest of the world is not allowed.
If the cap fits .....