Politicians Holster the Polemics on Gun Control

[benEzra]

Politicians holster the polemics on gun control
BY MATT STEARNS

Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/10979942.htm?1c

Democrats, desperate to regain their appeal to middle America, are moving away from the party's long identification with gun control, much to the relief of many beleaguered Democrats in states like Missouri.

"It's a loser," Rep. Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, said of gun control.

It's the Democrats who are moving further and faster from their previous position on guns. It's a notable change from 1994, when the assault weapons ban passed with backing from President Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress.

That coincided with the beginning of a big decline in Democratic support in rural areas. The year the ban passed, Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

Now Democrats want to reconnect with those voters.

Looks like the national party is finally getting the message that Feinstein/Schumer/Kennedy et al are killing them in rural and pro-gun areas, after all. :) :) :)

It is also interesting that "Americans for Gun Safety," the anti-gun group that were the architects behind the party's disastrous Talk-Up-Hunting-While-Demonizing-Nonhunting-Guns strategy in 2004, has moderated its rhetoric quite a bit. Will be interesting to see if they continue their crusade against nonhunting guns or shift toward a more safety-oriented approach.

[vpigrad]

1. It's a shame to...

see the party lose its focus. Making the country safer should be #1 on the list. It doesn't matter whether or not you have good healthcare if someone shots you and you're dead. The party needs to regain its focus on safety and on getting those things off of the streets.

[Township75]

3. That seems to be the mindset of gun control advocates...

it doesn't matter if we never get a national heathcare system, because we constantly lose elections over this issue...what really matters is that we put up a losing fight to get guns off of the streets.

[jody]

4. Dem Party is pro RKBA and no evidence gun control prevents crime.

Democratic Party Platform 2004
QUOTE
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
UNQUOTE

“Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” published by the National Academy of Sciences and “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws” published by the Center for Disease Control both conclude that none of the scholarly papers reviewed have conclusions that are statistically significant and support assertions that laws restricting or banning handguns or long guns are effective in reducing violent crime.

[benEzra]

6. Except for the "assault weapon" issue, yes...

the party platform is pro-gun.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch (e.g., the ban on practically all firearms holding over 10 rounds) is the party's main weak point, and the one that hurt Senator Kerry so badly in 2004 (as well as Gore in 2000).

[jody]

7. I agree re AWB. At the same time the GOP is stuck with Dubya who

promised to renew AWB and has done nothing. That from a person who never admits making a mistake.

[davepc]

8. He said he would sign the bill if it got to his desk

He never promised to push for it in congress.

It was all just double-talk. He knew the republican leadership in the house wouldent let such a bill come anywhere near the whitehouse, so he was able to pay lip service to the AWB.

[Billy Ruffian]

9. The 'gun-show loophole'

is another bad part of the platform.

There is no gun show loophole. If you're a dealer, you have to abide by the rules, or suffer the consequences. It doesn't matter where you sell.

IF the party wants to regulate all private sales, then we should be honest and say that. (I won't support it, though)

What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows, if other private sales can be made?

[iverglas]

10. well hmm

What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows, if other private sales can be made?

What's the point of private vendors selling at gun shows, if they can sell somewhere else instead?

Your question might best be put to those vendors. If they don't think that regulating their sales at gun shows would make any difference to them, then by all means, don't regulate 'em.

[Billy Ruffian]

11. What is your point?

I'm just not getting it.

Private citizens (in many or most locations in the US) are not subject to the regulations that firearms dealers must follow. That is simply a fact. I'm not arguing whether that is good or bad.

Firearms dealers have to follow the federal regulations regardless of where they make the sale. It doesn't matter whether they're selling in their store or at a gun show.

The 'gun-show loophole' referred to in the Democratic party platform is misleading. "Closing the gun-show loophole" means "regulating private sales of firearms"

If the party thinks that should be in the platform, the platform language should be changed.

[iverglas]

13. y'know, it's a funny thing

When I go to the bother of copying and pasting something from the post I'm replying to, it generally means that that is the thing I am replying to.

I boldface what I have copied and pasted, to identify it as what I have copied and pasted, and thus what I am replying to.

In this instance, it was:

What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows, if other private sales can be made?

I answered that question by inquiring as to the accuracy of the premise with which it was loaded:

"other private sales can be made".

That is, the question itself only makes sense IF that premise means "if just as many other private sales of just the same kind can be made elsewhere".

If that premise is true, then indeed, there would seem to be little use in regulating private sales at gun shows.

My problem with the premise is that I do not believe it is true.

I suggested that we test the truth of the premise by asking those who would know: private vendors who sell firearms at gun shows.

Would "closing the gun show loophole" indeed not affect their sales?

If that's the case, then don't close it.

We do know that a disproportionate number of firearms used in the commission of crimes come from gun shows. We might wonder why the people buying them don't just walk into firearms stores, might we not? We might wonder whether it is because they are ineligible to buy firearms -- in which case the vendors they are buying their firearms from at gun shows are presumably not the licensed dealers there.

So if it is NOT the case that "closing the gun show loophole" would NOT affect sales made by private vendors, then it looks like it might be a good idea to close it, entirely apart from anything done about other private sales of firearms (which, of course, I believe should be just as regulated as any other sales of firearms, there being little point in plugging a hole in the dike when the water is flowing over the top).

So, you asked for the explanation. I therefore trust that you won't whine about the length of it. I thought that everything I have said here was perfectly clear in the first place, but apparently it wasn't, and so I am happy to have been of assistance. If anything remains unclear, do inquire.

[Billy Ruffian]

16. working on some answers

but I'm having problems with PDF files. Go to www.ncgov.com, use the search function for 'firearms sales' Look for the firearms laws link. I'm going to check that as soon as I re-install Reader. I've got a bunch of other stuff to do tonight, so I'm not sure I'll get back to this.

You question whether I can sell a firearm without following the laws that a dealer has to. I can. I don't need to do a background check, I don't need to fill out and keep an ATF form 4473, and I don't need to do whatever else they have to do.

Whether or not that is a good thing is another argument. My point is that the Brady Campaign and the VPC use the terminology 'gun show loophole' and 'unlicensed dealers' to try to incite public opinion against private sales of firearms.

If the Brady Campaign and VPC and others that want more gun control want regulation of the private sales of firearms, they should use that terminology, rather than the inflammatory language they are currently using.

[iverglas]

24. what on earth are you talking about?

You question whether I can sell a firearm without following the laws that a dealer has to. I can. I don't need to do a background check, I don't need to fill out and keep an ATF form 4473, and I don't need to do whatever else they have to do.

I question this??

The fact that what you state is true is the very premise for everything I said. How can you imagine that I "question" it??

*I* happen to support a system in which ALL firearms transfers must be registered, and in which the transferee must be licensed, demonstrating that s/he has met the eligibility requirements for possessing a firearm. I support that system for me in my country; I take no position on what other people do in other countries. I will nonetheless argue that a certain course of action is advisable, which I do for the benefit of anyone who might be interested.

Whether or not that is a good thing is another argument.

No, it isn't "another" argument -- it is the argument I had engaged, for pity's sake. My original response was to what you said in the post of yours that I responded to:

There is no gun show loophole. If you're a dealer, you have to abide by the rules, or suffer the consequences. It doesn't matter where you sell.

IF the party wants to regulate all private sales, then we should be honest and say that. (I won't support it, though)

What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows, if other private sales can be made?

What have you imagined that I was talking about?

I offered a statement of what the point of regulating private sales at gun shows is.

Briefly put: individuals who are ineligible to possess firearms are able to buy them from private vendors, because private vendors are not required to check the backgrounds of the persons to whom they sell. (Let's not bother with the red herring that they are not generally allowed to check their customers' backgrounds. The salient point is that they do not check their customers' backgrounds.)

I would also surmise that private vendors of firearms are less likely to concern themselves with the possibility that they are selling to straw purchasers, since they are not subject to the same kind of controls to determine whether they make a practice of doing so. Just as they are less likely to concern themselves with whether their purchasers are eligible to possess firearms.

Gun shows offer a locus for ineligible/straw purchasers of firearms and private vendors of firearms to meet and deal. It would (I submit) be a considerably more complicated process for them to meet and deal if gun shows did not provide this locus.

I submit that requiring that private vendors at gun shows do background checks on their vendors would make it more difficult for ineligible/straw purchasers to meet and engage in transfers of firearms into the hands of ineligible/straw purchasers. And, of course, I submit that this is a good thing.

The point of my original question was: if private vendors at gun shows do not, themselves, object to being required to check their customers' backgrounds, then this might be evidence that

- they do not in fact make a practice of selling to ineligible/straw purchasers, and so the new rule would not affect their business, and would be pointless, and you would be right.

OR

- they would find it just as easy to sell to ineligible/straw purchasers somewhere else, and so the new rule would not affect their business, and would be pointless, and you would be right.

*I* don't believe that either of these things would be true. *I* believe, from the facts of which I am aware, that some of these private vendors *do* make a practice of selling firearms to ineligible/straw purchasers at gun shows, and that it would *not* be just as easy for them to do so elsewhere, and so the new rule would *not* be pointless.

So far, you don't seem to have wanted to respond to that point.

[Billy Ruffian]

28. hmmm

First, you wrote I answered that question by inquiring as to the accuracy of the premise with which it was loaded:

I read that as questioning whether my statement was factual. I don't think my understanding of that statement was unreasonable.

Now you state
The fact that what you state is true is the very premise for everything I said. How can you imagine that I "question" it??

I imagined that you questioned it because you wrote that you questioned it.

My very original point was that the phrasing of the Democratic party platform concerning "gun show loophole" depends upon an audience that does not know the details of the law. I further state that if the Democratic party wants to regulate all firearms transfers, then the platform should be changed to state it that way. That has been my message all along.

iverglas wrote
*I* don't believe that either of these things would be true. *I* believe, from the facts of which I am aware, that some of these private vendors *do* make a practice of selling firearms to ineligible/straw purchasers at gun shows, and that it would *not* be just as easy for them to do so elsewhere, and so the new rule would *not* be pointless.

If someone is making a practice of selling firearms at a gun show, they are going to attract the attention of local, state and Federal law enforcement. If the law enforcement officials believe the seller is working as an unlicensed dealer, that person will be in a great deal of legal trouble.

If a person brings a firearm or two to a gun show once in a while, they are allowed to sell it without determining the eligibility of the buyer. If they did not want to go to a gun show, they could take out a classified ad in the newspaper, put up a flyer at their local gun shop or shooting range, post on an electronic forum or mailing list, or nearly anything else they might think of.

I don't have a problem with that. You clearly do. I don't care whether you want to argue in favor of your system. I do suggest that you try to be more plain in your writing. I rarely find your posts to be clear or helpful.

[slackmaster]

30. Every federal bill to "close the GSL" has an Achilles' Heel

In order to have a Constitutional basis for regulating private transfers at gun shows, a law must include a definition of "gun show" that can be rationally argued to be an event at which interstate commerce can be presumed to be taking place. So there has to be an objective description of what a "gun show" is. Typically this is framed as a public event with some minimum number of people offering one or more guns for sale and/or a minimum number of guns offered for sale.

Any objective definition of "gun show" will have the unintended consequence of encouraging a proliferation of events that fall just below the thresholds required to make them into gun shows. Instead of a monthly gathering of gun dealers and bona fide collectors and Joe Sixpacks with a gun or three to sell at one corner of the town swap meet, there will be weekly gun exchanges every Sunday afternoon in the church basement.

Newspaper classified ads and public bulletin boards will see greater usage, but more importantly surely private individuals with guns to sell will continue their trend of making more and more use of Internet-based exchanges to find people who are interested in the particular guns they have for sale. I've already bought two used handguns this year from someone I got connected with through email. Since this is California and we are both law-abiding citizens we did the transfers through a dealer, who kindly charged me $45 for each transaction and baby-sat the weapons for me during the mandatory 10-day waiting period. (Actually the second one is in mid-wait.) In most states the buyer can simply drive or walk to the seller's home, drop some cash, and head for the range on the way home.

Here's a little tidbit on California law BTW - Our "One Handgun Per Month" law does not apply to private-party transfers. You can buy as many handguns from private individuals as your budget and safe gun storage capacity can handle, as long as you go through the required steps of having an FFL holder charge you money, initiate a background check, keep the gun in escrow for 10 days, and either sell you a trigger lock or make you sign an affidavit that you own a state-approved storage device when you take custody of the weapon. Call it a "loophole" at your own risk.

"Closing the gun-show loophole" won't do anything to reduce criminal misuse of firearms. It will not reduce the supply of used guns that will be sold, or the demand for them. All it will do is move private sales from one type of venue to others.

[MrSandman]

36. So they meet at the gunshow and arrange an off-site sale...

it would *not* be just as easy for them to do so elsewhere, and so the new rule would *not* be pointless.

Not much harder.


*I* happen to support a system in which ALL firearms transfers must be registered, and in which the transferee must be licensed,

Confusing what *I* support with *reality*?

[iverglas]

41. I dunno ...

*I* happen to support a system in which ALL firearms transfers must be registered, and in which the transferee must be licensed, ...
Confusing what *I* support with *reality*?

Perhaps you did do that. I made a statement of opinion. Whatever did you imagine I was doing?

Or perhaps you're confusing *your* reality with "reality", hmm? Since where I'm at, the system I described is, of course, reality.

I wonder what your point was.

[MrSandman]

18. Got me laughing...

We do know that a disproportionate number of firearms used in the commission of crimes come from gun shows.

We do?

The only evidence I recall was the DoJ survey of prison inmates who had used a firearm in crime. It did not, IIRC, support this proposition.

Easily Found:

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Damn, dealers account for a larger supply than "gun shows".

[iverglas]

25. damn, eh?

"family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

... and NONE of them was acquired at a gun show.

The possible prior sources for that 80% would be:

- stolen from the private home or business of a lawful owner (no need to trace beyond that point, as it would not really be relevant how the lawful owner acquired it)

- stolen from the private home or business of an unlawful owner (in which case any of the following could apply to that owner's acquisition and would be relevant)

- legally purchased from a lawful dealer (by an eligible purchaser)

- illegally purchased from a lawful dealer (by an ineligible purchaser or a straw purchaser)

- legally purchased from a private vendor not at a gun show (by an eligible purchaser)

- illegally purchased from a private vendor not at a gun show (by an ineligible purchaser or a straw purchaser)

- legally purchased from a private vendor at a gun show (by an eligible purchaser)

- illegally purchased from a private vendor at a gun show (by an ineligible purchaser or a straw purchaser)

- materialized in the hand of the person who sold it to the person in prison out of thin air, having dropped like a lawn dart from the sky

I can't think of any other possibilities.

So ... the one we're going to rule out is:

- illegally purchased from a private vendor at a gun show (by an ineligible purchaser or a straw purchaser)

? I don't know; you tell me.

[benEzra]

33. Lots of suppositions there...

Here's more specific stats:

http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/85/5932

"Inmates serving time in state prisons said they obtained their guns from the following sources in percentages:

Purchased from a retail store 8.3%
Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8%
Purchased at a flea market 1.0%
Purchased at a gun show 0.7%
Obtained from friends or family 39.6%
Obtained on the street/illegal source 39.2%

The percentage of inmates who bought their guns from a retail store fell from 21 percent in 1991, when the last such survey was conducted to 14 percent. At the same time the percentage who obtained their firearms from family or friends rose from 34 percent in 1991 to 40 percent."

Note that the 0.7% gun-show category includes ALL gun show sales, the vast majority of which are NOT private sales but rather sales by a licensed FFL, involving the NCIS background check and BATFE Form 4473.

Now, a reasonable assumption as to where the "got it from a friend or family member" category could involve two scenarios, or a mix of the two.

(1) the criminal's associates are also criminals, in which their gun sources would probably mirror those of other criminals, e.g. gun shows would still be under 1%.

(2) the criminal's associates are all fine upstanding law-abiding citizens, in which case you could delete the "underground black market" category and double the other percentages to make 100% of the remainder. So, you could end up with 1.4% of those obtained from gun shows, but since the friends/family source is only half of the total, you're back to under 1% coming from gun shows. (Other assumptions may give different results for this scenario, but I don't see them being all that much different, particularly for private sales.)

Those are not hard figures, but to assume that private sales at gun shows are anything more than a tiny percentage of sales to criminals is a leap of faith, not an extrapolation from any facts before us.

[MrSandman]

34. Blessed are those...

Who in the face of contradictory information can spin a convuluted tale to confirm their suppositions.

I have no idea where the primary sale occurred, but I would bet that it was through a licensed dealer.

[benEzra]

38. OK, let's break down the numbers a little differently.

New or used doesn't really matter so much as whether the transaction involved an FFL or not (since FFL sales involve the NCIS background check). Let's lump known FFL sales together, and (recognizing that the category "obtained from friend or family member" is a subset of private sales), we have:

Purchased through FFL NOT at a gun
..show (retail store, pawn shop).............12.1%
Purchased at a flea market
..(presum. not from FFL).........................1.0%
Purchased at a gun show (incl. both
..FFL and private sales)..........................0.7%
Private-sale NOT at a gun show,
..buyer known to seller..........................39.6%
Obtained on the street/illegal source
..(incl. illegal private sales;
..buyer not known to seller)....................39.2%

It's the private sales NOT at a gun show, from sellers known to the buyer, that are the #1 source of the guns in criminal hands, followed by "street" sources (i.e., illegal private sales by strangers, or theft). Some unknown percentage of both may originate as FFL or private sales at gun shows before they reach the "street" level, but it is generally considered a sign of a weak hypothesis to assume the observed trend blows up just beyond the point at which our data ends.

Also, assuming that some of the people in prison are in prison for illegally dealing in guns, you might see illegal-dealer sources already reflected in the survey to some extent, though probably only insignificantly.

But it IS clear that focusing on gun shows per se, rather than private sales, is a red herring; it's private sales whether at or not at a gun show that are the real issue here.

Want to close this avenue of gun trafficking? Figure out a way to run background checks on private sales in such a way that the checks cannot be used to created a registry of who owns what--and keep the prohibitionists from hijacking the bill or using the resulting system as a tool to curtail private sales--and I suspect you'd quickly see many, perhaps most, pro-gunners on board. Let the NRA air their concerns and they'd probably get on board, even.

FWIW, most legal private sales also involve friends or family members rather than total strangers. Most of the law-abiding gunnies I know purchased a significant portion of their gun collection from friends or family.

[Billy Ruffian]

20. Firearms can be sold privately

That's what I wrote, and what Iverglas questioned.

Here in North Carolina(NC), I can sell a firearm without permission. I can sell a handgun to someone that has a NC pistol purchase permit.

I don't have to get a background check done on the purchaser. I don't have to fill out and keep any records.

Here's the NC law on sales of weapons.
Here is a link to a PDF file from the NC attorney general about firearms regulations in my state.

I haven't been able to find anywhere in my state laws that I have to follow a dealer's requirements when I sell a firearm.

I wrote:
What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows, if other private sales can be made?

Iverglas wrote:
I answered that question by inquiring as to the accuracy of the premise with which it was loaded:

"other private sales can be made".

That is, the question itself only makes sense IF that premise means "if just as many other private sales of just the same kind can be made elsewhere".

If that premise is true, then indeed, there would seem to be little use in regulating private sales at gun shows.

My problem with the premise is that I do not believe it is true.

I'm quite confident that my statement, "other private sales can be made", is correct.

I think that US gun owners from other states can help tell us whether it is true in their states.

I'm not going to argue whether that is a good or bad thing. My point is that the current party platform says "close the gun show loophole", and that there is no such thing. That phrase is inflammatory, and plays on the emotions of those that don't know firearms laws.

There are legal private sales, and if the Democratic party wants to regulate private sales, then the platform should state it that way.

[iverglas]

26. a little grammar lesson

You write:

I wrote:

What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows, if other private sales can be made?

Iverglas wrote:

I answered that question by inquiring as to the accuracy of the premise with which it was loaded:

"other private sales can be made".

That is, the question itself only makes sense IF that premise means "if just as many other private sales of just the same kind can be made elsewhere".

If that premise is true, then indeed, there would seem to be little use in regulating private sales at gun shows.

My problem with the premise is that I do not believe it is true.

I'm quite confident that my statement, "other private sales can be made", is correct.

You seem to be confusing the words "can" and "may" -- which *I* did not do.

My question had nothing whatsoever to do with whether other private sales MAY be made, it had to do with whether other private sales CAN be made.

And that is in fact the question YOU asked -- whether they CAN be made -- hence it is the question I answered.

As I said, the question that needs to be considered is:

What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows, if just as many other private sales of just the same kind CAN be made elsewhere?

Actually, the question that needs to be considered is:

What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows, if just as many other private sales of just the same kind WILL be made elsewhere?

-- and that's a question that can only be answered by making a (hopefully educated) guess. And one way to make such a guess is to ask private vendors who sell at gun shows, I suggested: whether a rule requiring them to do background checks at gun shows would affect their business.

The fact that such other sales MAY be made is the reason why the question of whether they CAN be made needs answering.

Sheesh. If only I'd read this post first.


edited ... stuck a question mark in the wrong place.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

31. apparently

Grammar Nazi
bugger off.
Pedantic, supercilious and most of all, tiresome.

... the last resort of him/her who has failed to convey meaning via the written word. Kick the messenger when one's message didn't make sense.

[Billy Ruffian]

32. Pot, Kettle, Black

the last resort of him/her who has failed to convey meaning via the written word. Kick the messenger when one's message didn't make sense.

Describes your actions perfectly. You just type more.

[MrSandman]

39. A word means what I want it to...

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Billy Ruffian]

40. can vs. may

legally, private sales *may* be made in most US states.

practically, private sales *can* be made in those same jurisdictions, with very little effort.

[MrSandman]

21. Read the law, it is true

My problem with the premise is that I do not believe it is true.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/reportcards/2004/details.pdf

Look down to the 5th question.

[Billy Ruffian]

23. I think the Brady campaign misunderstands North Carolina law.

the buyer of a handgun has to have a permit, and the seller is supposed to keep that permit, but that's it. I think NC existing laws deserve a better grade, maybe a D-. I wish we had an F from the Brady Campaign.

[iverglas]

27. read my grammar lesson

and maybe we can let this particular straw fella die a peaceful death now.

Why in dog's name I would say I did not believe that it was true that private vendors at gun shows did not have to do background checks ... and why in dog's name anybody who's been around here long enough to know how long I've been around would imagine that I would say such a thing ... is quite beyond me.

[MrSandman]

35. I can only see what is posted...

I answered that question by inquiring as to the accuracy of the premise with which it was loaded:

"other private sales can be made".
<>

If that premise is true,...
<>
My problem with the premise is that I do not believe it is true.

Why in dog's name would one write "I do not believe it is true," when they in fact believe that other private sales can be made is quite beyond me.

Maybe drinking too much kool aid at the MMM?

[MrSandman]

22. Found another reference for ya

My problem with the premise is that I do not believe it is true.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x100346#100349

[alwynsw]

37. What's the use of regulating private sales at gun shows...

Simple. Exposure. People looking to buy have the opportunity to see what you have to offer.

It's much easier and often less expensive than running "For Sale" ads in magazines or papers.

[iverglas]

42. duh

Now ... what did you imagine that *my* point was?

[goju]

12. huh?

What's the point of private vendors selling at gun shows, if they can sell somewhere else instead?

The point? Rhetorical question, I assume? The point is, in case its not, is to put their wares in front of a large number of interested buyers. I would think this is obvious, but then, I might be too generous.

Your question might best be put to those vendors.

Vendors? You mean private citizens, right? I will go on that assumption, never knowing for sure. "Vendors" has a very specific meaning at gun shows referring to those who are either licensed gun dealers or vendors of other goods. You did know that, right?

If they don't think that regulating their sales at gun shows would make any difference to them, then by all means, don't regulate 'em.

Who is they, again? And, what is your point? That vendors and/or private citizens have the option of regulating their sales?

Very very confusing

[iverglas]

14. forgive me, but ...

What's the point of private vendors selling at gun shows, if they can sell somewhere else instead?
The point? Rhetorical question, I assume? The point is, in case its not, is to put their wares in front of a large number of interested buyers. I would think this is obvious, but then, I might be too generous.

Fuckin duh, eh?

Yes indeed. To put their wares in front of a large number of buyers. Some of whom, obviously, are not eligible to purchase firearms from licensed dealers, who would, were it not for gun shows, have to seek out the private vendors in the nooks and crannies where they do business.

Vendors? You mean private citizens, right?

Damn, you're good. Although as usual, I'm not giving a toss about their nationality.

S/he who sells something: the vendor.
S/he who buys something: the purchaser.

Like when I sell my house. The agreement of purchase and sale calls me the "vendor", my role in the the deal having nothing to do with whether I am licensed to sell real estate as an occupation or business.

Your point was?

"Vendors" has a very specific meaning at gun shows referring to those who are either licensed gun dealers or vendors of other goods. You did know that, right?

No, I didn't, and I don't give a shit even if it's so, because gun shows and their operators/denizens do not determine the meaning of words, and I think my meaning was quite plain from the words I used.

I suppose they call people selling firearms who are not licensed dealers "Nancy". I still don't care.

Who is they, again? And, what is your point? That vendors and/or private citizens have the option of regulating their sales?

Very very confusing

My condolences for whatever disability prevents you from tracing a pronoun to its referent in the preceding sentence. Try it again, maybe:

Your question might best be put to those vendors.

If they don't think that regulating their sales at gun shows would make any difference to them, then by all means, don't regulate 'em.

As for whatever option you have constructed your last question around, I'm failing to see what it has to do with anything I said.

[benEzra]

15. If a person is a vendor...

by which I presume you mean someone who sells guns at gun shows on a regular basis, and he doesn't have an FFL, he is probably "engaged in the business of firearms without a license" as the BATFE puts it, and thereby commits a Federal felony.

As far as "why do a private sale at a gun show," the primary reason would probably be simple convenience, especially for collectors (since that's where gun aficionados tend to gather).

Anecdotally, only gun I have ever bought in a private sale at a gun show was a collectible antique bolt-action rifle made in Poland (Polish rifles are among the most desirable of the non-Finnish Mosin-Nagants) from a collector. That seller was there because that's where gun collectors tend to congregate, and a collector would give him a higher price for his rare, pristine Polish M44 than the local pawn shop or would-be deer hunter would. FWIW, he did ask to look at my ID (to verify I was in-state), and some private sellers will also ask to see a concealed-carry permit (since anyone who holds a CCW permit has passed a thorough FBI background check).

The last gun show I attended, there was a collector selling a couple of Civil-War-era flintlock rifles, a vintage 1876 Colt revolver, and I think even a punt gun (giant hunting shotgun) from around the turn of the century. Prices were in the four-figure range, which again is more than one could sell them for by putting an ad in the paper.

I personally have sold a couple of guns at a gun show (to finance the Polish M44 purchase, actually), but sold to a licensed dealer (FFL) rather than to an individual. Under current law there is no way for a private individual to run a background check on a potential buyer other than asking for a CCW permit, and I personally would have been uncomfortable selling a pocket handgun to someone I didn't know personally.

In my (albeit somewhat limited) experience, private sales of non-collectible firearms like handguns and modern rifles (hunting or otherwise) are way underrepresented at gun shows compared to sales of collectibles, but are much more likely to be seen in the newspaper classifieds than collectibles.

[iverglas]

56. it's a fun argument

If a person is a vendor...
by which I presume you mean someone who sells guns at gun shows on a regular basis, ...

What I mean is someone who sells (firearms, in this case). It isn't that difficult.

vendor The seller in a sale.

... and he doesn't have an FFL, he is probably "engaged in the business of firearms without a license" as the BATFE puts it, and thereby commits a Federal felony.

Indeed, eh?

Of course, if s/he does not sell on a regular basis, nothing I have said having been restricted to those who sell "on a regular basis", then s/he presumably commits no crime.

Nonetheless, let us examine these possible dealers-without-licences.

Selling narcotics without a prescription is also some sort of felony, I assume. (I wouldn't think that whether it is "federal or otherwise" is germane to our discussion.)

Does the law provide for venues at which this activity can be engaged in, and thus facilitate the activity?

Anybody got any figures for prosecutions of dealing in firearms w/o a licence ... and anybody prepared to say that they are any sort of accurate representation of the actual extent of the activity?

Anybody got any idea of how it might be proved that an individual was in fact engaged in this activity, absent a rather complex and time-consuming surveillance of such an individual?

Anybody got an idea of the resources devoted to such investigations?

Anybody got some reason to believe that people who might engage in such activities at gun shows could expect
(a) to be detected
(b) to be successfully prosecuted
?

And hey, all that's still quite apart from the possibility that plain regular old non-"dealers" are not too concerned about the possibility that they're selling to straw purchasers or ineligible purchasers, eh?


I personally have sold a couple of guns at a gun show (to finance the Polish M44 purchase, actually), but sold to a licensed dealer (FFL) rather than to an individual. Under current law there is no way for a private individual to run a background check on a potential buyer other than asking for a CCW permit, and I personally would have been uncomfortable selling a pocket handgun to someone I didn't know personally.

I appreciate from various things things that you and others have said here that you and they, assuming your statements to be accurate reflections of your practices, are not part of any problem there might be in various respects (undesirable transfers, improper storage, etc.).

What I can't figure out is why most of you seem to think that others who don't share your scruples should not be held to the standards that you apply to yourselves with what you apparently consider to be good reason.

[benEzra]

17. Agree there (re: private sale 'loophole'). But I think...

that the AWB was what hurt the party the most in the 1994, 2000, and 2004 elections. Of course, Senator Kerry's cosponsorship of the Kennedy bill that, intentionally or unintentionally, would have given the Attorney General to ban pretty much whatever rifle caliber she/he wanted didn't help, nor did Senator Kennedy's statement that the legality of .30-30 Winchester ammunition is "outrageous and unconscionable"--WTF? But it was Senator Kerry's cosponsorship of S.1431, the draconian "renewed and expanded" AWB, that I think hurt him the most.

[MrSandman]

19. Let's go after dirty cigs, too...nt

[iverglas]

2. there's still time to edit

to bring the post into compliance with copyright rules at DU -- failing which, I suspect it will be deleted. Just a tip.

[benEzra]

5. Oops--thanks (n/t)

[benEzra]

43. Just when Democrats were starting to get some GOOD press...

Feinstein announces she is trying to revive the ridiculous ban on 11-round handguns and nontraditional-looking rifles...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/26/MNGGLBHDAN1.DTL&type=printable

I realize this is the same politician that tried to outlaw all handguns as mayor of S.F., and that the AWB affected handguns more than it affected anything else, but this is ridiculous... :eyes:





For non-gunnies or people not familiar with the issue, Feinstein's ban...

--outlawed the manufacture, but not the sale, of all firearms with magazines holding over 10 rounds, with a few inconsequential exceptions, thereby raising prices on standard-capacity magazines (in practice, this mainly affected handguns, since pre-1994 magazines were exempt);

--outlawed the manufacture, but not the sale, of all self-loading civilian firearms with two or more of a list of cosmetic or ergonomic features, like a rifle with the stock shaped a certain way (pre-1994 firearms exempt);

--decreed that 19 scary names may not be used when marketing firearms to non-LEO civilians (pre-1994 firearms exempt).

Contrary to popular belief, it did not ban any automatic weapons, military AK-47's and Uzi's, or whatever. Those were and are already restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which has been on the books for, oh, 71 years now.

[iverglas]

44. gee

For non-gunnies or people not familiar with the issue, Feinstein's ban...

I'm sure someone will fit that description and be immensely grateful for yet another repetition of this particular characterization of the items/issues.

Can I interest you in a "non-traditional looking" looking housepet with a few "cosmetic or ergonomic features"?

[Billy Ruffian]

45. nice diversion.

please find me a pet store where I can buy one.

standard inappropriate analogy.

[iverglas]

46. silly diversion

please find me a pet store where I can buy one.

For pity's sake.

Obviously, you SHOULD BE ABLE to buy one in a pet store. After all, it is just a non-traditional-looking housepet with a few "cosmetic or ergonomic features".

Stand up for your rights for heaven's sake, man.

[goju]

47. Apples, oranges....everywhere!

A grizzly's temperment doesnt lend itself to the "pet" category, does it? Not that I dont appreciate an absurd analogy from time to time but, this one is beyond the pale.

It is nice to see the anti gun zealots still think "assault weapons" are more dangerous than their non assault weapon cousins though. And they wonder why we repeat the distinctions/similarities time after time after time. :eyes:

[iverglas]

50. well really

A grizzly's temperment doesnt lend itself to the "pet" category, does it?

Don't you just think it might be for MOI to decide what lends itself to being a pet for MOI?

Who art THOU to decide what kind of pet I may need/want? What would need have to do with it anyhow? Surely my want is entirely sufficient.

Damned meddling bear-grabbers, thinking they know what's best for everybody else.

It is nice to see the anti gun zealots still think "assault weapons" are more dangerous than their non assault weapon cousins though.

Where you getting that one, b'y? (I speak in companionable Newfoundlandese, lest anyone be confused.) *I* certainly haven't said that *I* think grizzley bears are more dangerous than tabbies.

Just because *you* might think so, surely that has nothing to do with whether *I* am entitled to keep one around *my* house. Duh.

[goju]

51. Hmmm

Don't you just think it might be for MOI to decide what lends itself to being a pet for MOI?

Sure, whatever you want. I know we here in the states can own bears, as pets, not sure what situation you face up there though. However, the point I was making is that bears are "objectively" much more difficult to keep and train than are box turtles and the like. But feel free to run out and find you a grizzly, if you want. Your analogy wont be any less absurd, or misguided.

Once again we have another "well informed" anti gun zealot who just doesnt seem to understand the distinctions and similarities between so called "assault weapons" and hunting rifles.

Anyone surprised?

[iverglas]

52. oh dear

I know we here in the states can own bears, as pets, ...

http://www.bigcatrescue.org/statelawsexoticcats.htm

New York

State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-0689

State Web Site
Department Web Site

In 2005 new law pecifically prohibits the possession, sale, barter and importing of big cats, monkeys, large reptiles, bears, wolves, venomous snakes and many other wild animals as pets.

Oklahoma

Department of Wildlife Conservation
P.O. Box 53465
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405-521-3851

State Web Site
Department Web Site

Policy

Requires a Commercial Breeder's permit for possession of any native bear or cat (black bear and mountain lion) that has an adult weight that exceeds 50 pounds, even if the animal is not to be bred. Issues Personal Possession permits for any native wildlife to be kept for hobby purposes. ... Cage construction and inspection is required before permit is issued.

http://www.api4animals.org/372.htm

Connecticut

It is unlawful for persons to possess potentially dangerous animals unless the animal was in possession prior to May 23, 1983. Potentially dangerous animals include: the Felidae family (lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx, and bobcat); the Canidae family (wolf and coyote); the Ursidae family (black bear, grizzly bear, and brown bear); and venomous reptiles, alligators, crocodiles. ...

Illinois

No person may harbor, care for, act as a custodian, or maintain in his possession any dangerous animal except at a properly maintained zoological park, federally licensed exhibit, circus, scientific or educational institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital or animal refuge. "Dangerous animal" means a lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, bear, hyena, wolf, coyote, or any poisonous life-threatening reptile. ...

And I could go on.

Outa-da-bum talking again?


However, the point I was making is that bears are "objectively" much more difficult to keep and train than are box turtles and the like.

That was the point you were making? If only it had been à propos of something that was being discussed ...


Once again we have another "well informed" anti gun zealot who just doesnt seem to understand the distinctions and similarities between so called "assault weapons" and hunting rifles.

Anyone surprised?

Surprised that you are alleging something for which you have no basis in fact, and that is unrelated to anything I said?

Not in the least!

[davepc]

48. That does it, I'm convinced!

I support the Feinstein ban 100%!

We cant have people owning bears!

Scary looking guns are like scary looking pets!

Even though, you know, animals have minds of their own and guns are inert lumps of metal that don't do anything unless manipulated by a person, its a great analogy!

[iverglas]

49. it is indeed

Even though, you know, animals have minds of their own and guns are inert lumps of metal ...

How silly.

If I keep my grizzly securely penned up, it can have all the mind of its own it wants, and it still isn't going to be able to operate the combination lock on the pen. That combination lock is just going to have to be manipulated by a person, and as long as it isn't, everybody is just as safe as houses, grizzly bear in mine or no grizzly bear in mine. So why may I not have one? How can anyone else know that I will never need a grizzly bear to defend against invading crocodiles, and how can anyone purport to be justified in prohibiting me from having one and thus dooming me to death at the jaws of crocs? Damned authoritarian governments.

[benEzra]

53. (Sigh...) OK, please explain to me...

how a self-loading 9mm handgun that is bulky and scary looking (e.g., civilian Uzi lookalike) is SO much more dangerous than a civilian 9mm handgun that is NOT bulky and scary looking (Glock 17), given that they both can accept 10 round magazines, 17-20 round magazines, or 30+ round magazines and rate of fire is identical. So much more dangerous, in fact, that it rates the analogy of 500-Kilogram Grizzly to Ordinary House Pet. :eyes:

Care to compare the incidence of ordinary .38/.357 revolvers and 12-gauge pump-action shotguns in homicides to, say, Steyr AUG lookalikes and Colt Delta HBAR's and civilian Uzi lookalikes? Per BATFE Top Ten trace data for both, it is the former that criminals find useful, not the latter...

The distinctions made in the National Firearms Act (1934) between ordinary civilian guns and those falling under heavier restrictions might, with a bit of a stretch, fit your analogy. But the AWB was about aesthetic distinctions between otherwise functionally identical firearms; a civilian self-loading rifle in 7.62x39 was banned if it had a protruding handgrip and a screw-on muzzle brake, but not if it had a protruding handgrip and a pin-on muzzle brake. And so on.

Care to explain the functional differences between a civilian AK-47 lookalike and a Ruger mini-30 (short-range, rather underpowered deer rifle)? Other than the fact that the mini-30 is a bit easier to fire from the hip, due to the stock angle, of course...

I made the obligatory note to "non-gunnies" because so many people believe the ban covered automatic weapons (it didn't), military AK-47's and Uzi's (no, but even Senator Kerry fell for that one), guns that fire more rapidly than "civilian" firearms (they don't), guns that are generally more powerful than typical "civilian" firearms (actually it's the other way around), or even "weapons of mass destruction" (yes, the prohibitionists have called them that).

[MrSandman]

54. Appeal to ridicule...nt

[iverglas]

55. but damn, eh?

The things some people say just cry out for it.

Unfortunately, in this case, despite how much the assertions in question cried out for ridicule, my post was not an appeal to ridicule. It was an analogy presented to show just how ridiculous the assertion in question in fact was.

Ridicule is really just not always an appeal to ridicule, and hence not always fallacious, you of course know.


p.s. -- you do remember ... reductio ad absurdum ...

[MrSandman]

57. Given the irrelevance of the attempted analogy...

the argument does happen to be fallacious.


Entertaining, yes.

[iverglas]

58. aha

"Given the irrelevance of the attempted analogy..."

It's PROOF BY BLATANT ASSERTION time!

[MrSandman]

59. Indeed....

The assertion that the relationship between a semi-automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is is irrelevant to the relationship between a wild animal and a domesticated animal.

[benEzra]

60. You don't actually think the AWB covered military weapons, do you?

Unfortunately, in this case, despite how much the assertions in question cried out for ridicule, my post was not an appeal to ridicule. It was an analogy presented to show just how ridiculous the assertion in question in fact was.

I suspect the problem here is that while you are rather conversant on firearms law, you are not all that familiar with the technical characteristics of firearms themselves, making you rather susceptible to the claim that firearms the anti-gun lobby designates "assault weapons" are in some way superlative compared to other civilian firearms. Which was the intended purpose of the "assault weapon" meme in the first place.

It is a FACT that the differences between a civilian AK lookalike and a Ruger mini-30 deer rifle are aesthetic, not functional. E.g., both are self-loading rifles chambered for the low-powered 7.62x39mm rifle cartridge; both use gas operated, rotating-bolt systems, with the gas port in front of the handguard; both use Garand-type trigger assemblies; both take double-column magazines with an integral catch on the front and a release lever at the back of the magazine well; both even have integral scope mounts. The ONLY significant difference in the two designs is that the gas system in the Ruger is upside-down compared to the AK lookalike, allowing it to be concealed within a traditional-looking wooden forestock.

And not all AK lookalikes were even classified as "assault weapons," merely those marketed under the NAME "AK-47" or those with bayonet lugs or threaded muzzles instead of smooth.

And it is also a FACT that the guns most affected by the ban were full-size handguns of traditional styling, like those carried by police, due to the ban on the new manufacture of over-10-round magazines. (Rifle magazine prices were not significantly affected by the ban.)

[slackmaster]

61. Well said, benEzra

Re: "The ONLY significant difference in the two designs is that the gas system in the Ruger is upside-down compared to the AK lookalike, allowing it to be concealed within a traditional-looking wooden forestock."

I hope you don't mind if I paraphrase it in the future.

[diatribal]

62. So,

The next ban should include this rifle too.

[slackmaster]

63. Illogical

The ban did not serve the public interest, it only reduced the choices available to people.

Neither rifle should have been banned.

[MrSandman]

64. To be effective...

The next ban should include ALL semi-autos. They are all slight variants of similar operating systems.

But then there are the "super-accurate" bolt action long-range sniper guns.

Just don't try to win an election on that.

[sir pball]

69. Shhhh!

But then there are the "super-accurate" bolt action long-range sniper guns.
Quiet! That's my "varmint" rifle! Even though no varmint hunter worth his rifle would ever use the 308...oh well, it works great on deer.

Seriously though, I don't think that the criminal element has the patience to learn how to shoot one of those things properly, nor the insane amounts of money to get a true purpose-built "sniper" rifle. (Those things are like 4 grand!) Sure, an assassin/terrorist/(insert bugaboo of choice) would probably be willing to put that much effort into training and investment, but at that point they could just get a target rifle, or a vanilla deer rifle and accurize it. Like you said, try and win an election on that - "Nobody needs a scoped, bolt-action rifle to hunt deer, only use for them is headshots at 500m!" *chuckles*

[benEzra]

65. And the Remington 7400 deer rifle...

The next ban should include this rifle too.

And the Remington 7400 deer rifle...and the Ruger 10/22, and all those other semiautomatic Marlins and Remingtons and Winchesters and Brownings and Benellis...

and should also include the Glock 17, 19, and 26, the Ruger P-89, the Smith & Wesson 5906, and the Beretta 92F, which are functionally identical to the civilian Uzi lookalikes mentioned in the 1994 ban...

Presto, you've just advocated a ban on all repeating handguns that aren't revolvers, and all self-loading rifles.

Jacking the price on magazines for the aforementioned handguns, and requiring that new AR-15's be sold with fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones, cost the Democratic party the House, the Senate, and two presidencies. Care to speculate what the political fallout from banning all self-loaders would be?

[diatribal]

67. Fair enough.

But I think I've already posted my thoughts on this. And that would be to ban all of them. Give everyone a date as to when they need to be turned in. And severe punishment for anyonr not turning them in.
Sure, the criminals wouldnt turn them in, but the guns would be rounded up as each was arrested, each crack house busted, and when gun nuts were foolish enough to show their hidden treasures to someone who knew the right thing to do.

Yes. All of them. Every last one.

[sir pball]

70. Good luck...

'Cuz that wouldn't be total political suicide or anything - look at the effect of the AWB and multiply it by ten. Or a million. Lord knows I'd never vote for a pol who tried something like that...

[diatribal]

72. I'd suppose you wouldnt.

Checking your sig line shows you as a general supporter of war, mayhem, and death.

I don't want to keep you from fondling your barrel for too long though.

[sir pball]

73. This better?

I suppose now I'm a general supporter of totalitarianism?

Back to banning guns - what would you do with lever-action rifles? Serously? They can be fired damn near as fast as semi-automatics, just as accurately, and they come in some MIGHTY powerful calibers (a .450 Marlin will take out a grizzly bear, it would probably blow through the door of a cop car, through the officer, and clean out the other side). Really, I'm not trolling.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sir pball]

79. Hardly

I was merely pointing out that a lever-action gun, completely outside of any of the parameters you set for your ideal ban, would deliver an approximately equivalent volume of fire of a MUCH more devastating caliber than any "assault rifle" currently available. Perhaps if I had just said "armored vehicle", you would have been alright with it?

Incidentally, anybody who knows the basic facts about firearms should know that pretty much any rifle round will penetrate body armor, it's like...Ballistics 101. Personally, I wouldn't use a Marlin against armored assailants, my deer rifle or Evil Black Rifle would be more than adequate.

[slackmaster]

74. Noted and link filed for future reference

Yes. All of them. Every last one.

To be brought out as an example any time someone says that nobody wants to ban all guns.

[iverglas]

75. ah, if only

Yes. All of them. Every last one.
To be brought out as an example any time someone says that nobody wants to ban all guns.

If only the statement had not been made in a discussion in which the referrent for the "them" in the statement was not plainly particular types of firearms.

(I don't know, maybe the poster actually asserts that all firearms should be banned, but I haven't seen evidence of that. And if so, then - who knows? - maybe s/he actually makes that assertion sincerely ...)

But hey, facts like this haven't stopped a lot of people from claiming that Dianne Feinstein actually said that she would require all firearms to be turned in if she could accomplish it, so what's to stop you from claiming this, eh?

[goju]

77. The poster does

I don't know, maybe the poster actually asserts that all firearms should be banned, but I haven't seen evidence of that.

I have....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=99661&mesg_id=99719&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=99661&mesg_id=99728&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=99661&mesg_id=99732&page=

Finally, an honest gun grabber, eh?

[MrSandman]

78. Maybe with a gold star...

That could be easily found.

[iverglas]

81. eckchewly

I was busier using it to look elsewhere on the DU site. Oddly, didn't find much ...

[iverglas]

80. ah, me

We're such a trusting lot here, aren't we?

[goju]

82. Some of us are

And some of us are honest about our goals too. Tis refreshing, dont you think?

[iverglas]

83. I'm sure some are

An image just pops into my head every so often, and it seems to be there now, although I can't imagine why, and would hope that no one would infer a reason where I state none:


http://www.scottandhelen.com/monkeys/drawings/page9.htm

[goju]

84. I know what you mean

Every now and then, Im reminded of something I read some time ago...but as you said, I cant imagine why :eyes:

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#civility

[iverglas]

85. my goodness

Unless *you* are asserting that every rkba-head is "a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper", I think your mental image evocation system is in need of a tune-up.

*I* was certainly not even alluding to such a possibility. And could not have been interpreted as having done so. Unless rkba-head = disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper, or someone reading thinks it does. But of course, *I* don't say *that*, and did not say that.


oops; that's "reading thinks", not "reading things". Typos that almost look like they make sense are the worst ...

[goju]

87. Perhaps

Or maybe I was accurately referring to certain under-the-radar insinuations of such things made by certain posters who would rather not be entirely honest, for one reason or another. Who knows?

But as I said, honesty is a rarity for some, impossible for some others.

[alwynsw]

97. What planet are you from?

The language was clear enough. You're spinning yet again.

[diatribal]

86. Yes.

I did say that. And I really would like to see them gone.

I understand that some people really enjoy going shooting. I understand that there are constitutional issues, and that it is not politically the best thing to ask for.

In the last year, among freinds of my family and my coworkers:

One gun suicide, yes they could have taken pills, but the gun is what was used.

One 14 year old boy shot in the hand while fooling around with a friend in the woods behind his house. The freind was shooting, the kid who was injured was playing a silly game of annoy the shooter, and ended up with his hand in front of a .22 Preventable by good training, but wasnt trained, wasnt prevented.

One close friend of a coworker murdered in cold blood in a bank robbery in north georgia. A woman with teenage children at home. Gunned down like a dog despite appearances that she was trying to comply.

A family member threatened by a person with a gun while exiting a dance club.

All of these things have cures outside of banning the guns. None of these problems have ever been solved, and it's unlikely that they will be solved in ours, or our children's lifetimes. The only common thread is firearms. People will still be stupid, robbers will still be greedy, and people will still feel there is no option other than checking out. I feel that by removing the guns, there will still be crime, still be suicide, and still be stupid wounded kids, but the damage will be lessened. Not eliminated, but lessened. I feel that lowering the damage to people is an honest way to do good for those around us. And if we are not here to to good, why are we here?

[slackmaster]

88. One gaping hole in your reasoning

If you advocate the blanket banning of guns you alienate most people who own one or more of them. In taking such a draconian position, a political party would be absolutely assured of losing every national election and most state and local ones as well. So in spite of having sterling intentions you end up with no power and therefore get nothing done, good or otherwise.

Gun owners may not be a majority but we are a sizeable minority and many of us are politically active.

...I feel that by removing the guns, there will still be crime, still be suicide, and still be stupid wounded kids, but the damage will be lessened. Not eliminated, but lessened. I feel that lowering the damage to people is an honest way to do good for those around us. And if we are not here to to good, why are we here?

There are all kinds of ways to do good and lessen damage and make life better for people without focusing on guns. All of us care about suicide and accidents and violent crime. If I thought that dumping my gun collection into a melting furnace would have a significant chance of saving anyone's life, even in the distant future, I'd seriously consider doing it.

On many occasions I've challenged people to come up with any historical example of a society that became safer as a result of a gun ban, and the usual response is how the rate of firearm violence in Australia or England and Wales is lower than the US. Well duh, those countries have always had less of a problem with misuse of guns than the US. If you look at the historical rates of homicide (not just "gun homicide" in Australia, you'll see it has gone up and down in parallel with the USA's homicide rate and always been about 1/4 of ours. You have to compare Country A after a gun ban with Country A before a gun ban to have any chance of seeing an effect. The rate of homicides by gun may actually be diminishing slightly in Australia, but last time I checked the rate of homicides has not. Gun banners there cook the numbers so they focus only on incidents in which a person shoots dead four or more people within a 24-hour period. That's nice, but if your chance of being murdered in Australia is no lower than it was before the ban what good has it really done?

Why is it that nobody is able to produce evidence of an effect? I see it as coming down to one or more of three things:

A. There is not enough information to see an effect,

B. The effect is so weak it is not discernable among the statistical noise caused by other factors, or

C. There is no real effect.

In the absence of proof of their effectiveness, I see gun bans as negative because they deprive otherwise free people of choices. We should focus on the root causes of accidents and violence: Poverty, injustice, inequality, ignorance, lack of opportunity, etc. Bringing people up to a higher standard of living will reduce crime. That's what real progressives ought to focus on, rather than treating symptoms by incrementally depriving people of things they want.

[goju]

89. Put the next round on my tab, slack

Couldnt have said it better myself, even with a cheat sheet ;)

Youve highlighted exactly what the problem is. Im reminded of the old saying, paraphrased..penny wise but a pound foolish. We have to stop chasing our tail on this, and other issues, or we might as well pack up and concede.

[iverglas]

90. that's funny

penny wise but a pound foolish

"A pound foolish", eh?

A little more than 12 ounces foolish, but not nearly as much as a ton foolish.

Is a shotgun a long gun?
Not if you saw it off ...

[goju]

91. Indeed

Although "pound" refers to currency, not weight, but who cares about such details, right?

Is a sawed off shotgun, still a long gun.
Absolutely. Again, who cares about such details?

[sir pball]

92. BATFE cares

Sawed-offs are Class III "Short Barreled Weapons". Bad stuff, like Federal charges bad.

[goju]

94. Well now

That would just depend on how much is sawed off, wouldnt it?

[iverglas]

95. uh, yeah

Although "pound" refers to currency, not weight, but who cares about such details, right?

And that would be why the expression is:

penny wise and pound foolish
(which can be written as penny-wise and pound-foolish:
http://www.goenglish.com/PennyWisePoundFoolish.asp)

not

penny wise and A POUND foolish

... and what did you imagine the source of my levity was?

S/he who cares about details might pay a little more attention to them.


Is a shotgun a long gun?
Not if you saw it off ...
Is a sawed off shotgun, still a long gun.
Absolutely. Again, who cares about such details?

Well ... apparently not everyone here. Missed it, didya?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=98198&mesg_id=98198

11.Silly question -- they are long guns, right, shotguns?
-- crispini

16. Long, but usually not ridiculously long
-- derby378

72. hahaha, that's funny
Even *moi* knows that "long gun" is a term of art!
-- iverglas

[diatribal]

93. Wow

That was a really well reasoned and written response.

I'm going to research this, as I feel there must be a positive effect. I just wanted to complement you on your post. I'll do my best to find something that will change your mind.

[iverglas]

66. you don't actually think the moon is made of green cheese, do you??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=56039

You could read my posts beginning at #47 if you don't actually yet know what I think of all this.

Or here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=92129

"Instead of being concerned about how many accessories a particular weapon has, we should be concerned with its rate of fire, with its capacity to puncture body armor, with the total amount of energy (in joules, perhaps) released per round."

I wouldn't disagree that those are all reasonable things to be concerned about -- but I think you've fallen for a very successful disinformation campaign when it comes to these "accessories".

I've never seen any evidence that the intent of the previous assault weapons ban in the US was to ban the accessories, or to ban any firearms because of the accessories. I really thought it fairly obvious that the legislation referred to the accessories because they were characteristic of the firearms that were in issue.

As an analogy, one could prohibit the sale of beer by banning the sale of beverages packed in brown glass containers -- a format that is (or used to be) characteristic of beer.

Obviously, such bans can be got around, with varying degrees of ease, by eliminating the characteristics in question, leaving an item or substance that is just as undesirable as its predecessor unbanned. Beer can be sold in tins. Firearms can be made that are exactly like banned firearms except that they don't have the characteristic in question.

Now, I'd point out that this appears to me to be the case for some of the characteristics in question, but not necessarily all. Someone will immediately correct me if I have failed to take sufficient interest in the US assault weapons ban to recite all its features by heart, but I gather that magazine size was one of the criteria by which the affected firearms were distinguished from others. And a high magazine capacity isn't just characteristic of a firearm that it was deemed undesirable to have in general circulation, it was a specific reason why the firearm was deemed undesirable.

In both cases, in any event, the concern could not fairly be characterized as a "concern with accessories".

Of course, like I said, I'd have to be really interested to sort it all out really well.

In the meantime, I haven't seen anyone give any good explanation of why grizzly bears ought not to be regarded, for the purposes of the law on housepets, simply as dogs that are big and scary-looking.

[MrSandman]

68. It may have to do with over a half ton of muscle mass...

I haven't seen anyone give any good explanation of why grizzly bears ought not to be regarded,... simply as dogs that are big and scary-looking.

[benEzra]

71. Magazine capacity and the features limit were separate aspects

of the law. All self-loading firearms of over 10-round capacity could no longer be manufactured for "civilian" sale, regardless of how politically correct the firearm in question might be (i.e., a .22-caliber target pistol). In practice, it affected primarily handguns of relatively recent design, since pre-1994 magazines were exempt; for example, my wife had to pay more than US$100 for a 15-round magazine for her Glock 9mm pistol in 1996 or 1997, whereas AK magazine prices hovered at around $10 during the ban for a standard steel 30-rounder.

Regarding the features list--since aside from any appurtenances the shape/appearance of the "assault weapons" is the only difference between them and non-assault weapons, the features list was the only way for the prohibitionists to ban some self-loaders without banning them all, unless you grant an official the power to simply halt production of guns he or she simply does not like the looks of (as is the case with California's ban).

Since none of the guns covered by the ban were genuine AK-47's (the AK-47 being a heavily restricted Class III automatic weapon under the National Firearms Act), there was really no other way to do it. AK-47's were ALREADY restricted, so all the AWB could do was to restrict civilian guns that looked vaguely like them by means of superficial features like stock shape or type of muzzle crown. But if you try to look beneath the features list, the restricted guns are simply identical to the nonrestricted guns; there simply is no functional difference.

A Ruger mini-30 could be fitted post-1994 with a black plastic stock having a protruding handgrip. Or it could have the muzzle threaded for a muzzle brake (recoil reducer). But it would have been a Federal felony to do both to the same rifle, because then it would be an "assault weapon."

So a hunting rifle with a nontraditional stock and a threaded muzzle could not be newly manufactured, but a civilian Kalashnikov derivative with a nontraditional stock and nonthreaded muzzle was completely legal to manufacture (my SAR-1 is a 2002 model, FWIW) since there is no other way to distinguish a faux AK from an "ordinary" rifle except by its looks (since the faux AK is designed to function like an ordinary civilian rifle, not like a military AK).

[alwynsw]

96. I'll pile on this one, too

Why didn't you use a travel analogy using the space shuttle?

It would be as appropriate.