NY Times: "Close the Gun Show Loophole" ...

[defendandprotect]

Did you know that if gun dealers call themselves “private sellers” at gun shows, they can ignore the law and sell their guns to anyone -- no background check, no records made, no questions asked?



Listen to the Families
NY Times Editorial
April 27, 2010

There are two tragic anniversaries this month. It is 11 years since two Colorado students gunned down 12 of their fellow classmates and one teacher at Columbine High School and three years since 32 students and faculty members were gunned down at Virginia Tech.

Those horrors haven’t slowed the gun lobby’s relentless push to weaken the nation’s already far too weak gun laws — or Congress’s eagerness to do the gun lobby’s bidding. Last week, House Democrats had to pull back legislation that would have finally given the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress because of amendments tacked on to the bill that would have gutted local gun laws.

The only bright spot in all of this is that gun victims’ families and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, are fighting back. They have begun a campaign to get Congress to close the loophole that has allowed criminals, troubled teens and the mentally ill to evade federal background checks and purchase weapons from unlicensed private dealers at weekend gun shows.

The Columbine shooters used four high-powered weapons obtained by a friend, no questions asked, from “hobbyist” gun-show dealers. These shows are a leading source of illegally trafficked guns — a large number of guns recovered in crimes come from states that do not require gun show background checks.

Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California, all Democrats, have introduced a bill that would close the loophole nationally. It now has 17 sponsors. Shamefully missing from the list are Senator Mark Udall of Colorado and Senators James Webb and Mark Warner of Virginia.



http://www.closetheloophole.org/tellafriend

[X_Digger]

1. No, if it's on the FFL's books, he has to use NICS.

The only time an FFL can legally not perform an NICS check is when selling to another FFL or an individual who has one of the NICS approved permits. (see http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html )

eta: And for end users with appropriate permits, a 4473 is still logged, and for FFL-to-FFL, entries in both dealers' bound books are required.

btw..

These shows are a leading source of illegally trafficked guns

Tell that to the DOJ

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

1.7% of guns used in crime come from gun shows / flea markets.

[MicaelS]

2. Horseshit, pure and unadulterated

Any dealer with an FFL who calls himself a “private sellers” who sells at a show with doing a background as required by Federal and State law, is going to find himself in very big legal trouble. And rightly so.

If you don't have FFL and sell from your private collection it is NO different from putting and ad in the paper and selling your guns there.

This whole Gun Show Loophole is just FUD that Bloomberg, Lautenberg and other grandstanding idiots use to keep people in fear of guns.

[Obamanaut]

3. Same post here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8231997

[slackmaster]

4. A gun dealer CANNOT sell guns from inventory without doing the federal background check

Of course a dealer can sell guns from his private collection the same as anyone else can, but this piece is fundamentally dishonest.

N&U

:nuke:

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. So to get if off the books, he has only to buy it from his own inventory,

making it a part of his private collection, and then he can do with it as he wishes.

But THAT would never happen.

[slackmaster]

16. That's called a straw purchase. BATFE would pull his license if they found out he did that.

And in an audit, there is a good chance he would.

Anyone who has an 01 Federal Firearms License is required to keep records of acquisitions and disposals of personal weapons. Those records are subject to audit just as are the business records.

[gorfle]

19. It could happen, but it's not likely.

So to get if off the books, he has only to buy it from his own inventory, making it a part of his private collection, and then he can do with it as he wishes. But THAT would never happen.

FFL dealers have to keep a permanent record of all firearms they purchase and sell. This record is subject to inspection by BATFE agents at any time.

An FFL who routinely buys his own firearms and then sells them privately would almost certainly come under scrutiny fairly quickly and would need some good explanations as to why he was laundering firearms by buying them from himself and then re-selling them privately.

The only reason I could think a person might buy a firearm from themselves and then turn around and sell it "off the record" would be so that they could sell it at a higher-than-market-price markup to someone not illegible to legally own firearms. But this would be incredibly dangerous to do. Such a firearm sale would almost certainly be to someone up to no good, and that firearm would have a high likelyhood of being used in a crime and discovered by the police. As soon as the police get that firearm, they are going to trace it to the last FFL who had it in their possession, and they are going to start looking at their firearm sale records. It will be instantly obvious what happened to the firearm, and POOF, there goes the business' FFL license and they are no longer in business selling firearms.

In short, an FFL dealer would no longer willingly jeopardize their Federal Firearms License in this manner than a bar would jeopardize their liquor license by knowingly selling to underage drinkers. The financial consequences are devastating.

[SteveM]

89. Keep hot-wiring your arguments; you'll burn something up, no doubt.

[Pavulon]

5. This issue is so done. You would be better off trying to bring back jim crow, or the hoop skirt

the country has pretty much figured out gun control is an opt in thing for criminals. All it does is piss on legal owners and voters.

And no actually a dealer cant do that without breaking federal laws. The law you are talking about allows me to sell a firearm to another resident in my state without involving the federal government. Same as if I sell, golf clubs, plasma tv, or other tools person to person.

Gun control is a political disaster in the making, I think Newt underscored the impact of fucking around with pointless firearms laws.

"hey did you know that messing with gun control is the fastest way to loose political office? tell your friends crime is down and smart people have now seen that gun control does not prevent crime only cost us votes"

[flamin lib]

6. What's really funny is that, as a class III FFL I don't have to do a

background check on anyone I "dispose of" a gun to. I have a Curio and Relic license to buy and collect specific types of guns. I can't use it as a business to sell to the public but I can dispose of (sell at current market value) any of my collection to upgrade the collection by buying a better replacement. Understand that if I 'upgrade' my collection four of five times a month I'll be spending some time alone in a small room with concrete walls.

I checked with the local BATF office and confirmed that all I need is to verify an address and identity of the purchaser--and not knowingly sell to felon or other prohibited person.

So I can buy semi-automatic 9 mm handguns and, on occasion, sell them to any civilian without a NICS check if I replace the gun in my collection. "Gee, agent, he looked like an upstanding citizen to me. Sure he had a shaved head and he had picture ID with an address and everything. I swear I didn't see that swastika tattoo."

That makes no sense to me and even though legal to sell them myself you can count on me running all my sales through a class I FFL.

[slackmaster]

17. Not only do we not have to, we CAN'T.

I'm an 03 FFL as well. The NICS system is not available to us.

[Callisto32]

82. The whole system is ridiculous.

A C96 is just as deadly as an SR9.

Why different licenses?

Why not make the NICS system open to the public? What does it only work to save lives when people with the super-power of being "federally licensed" use it?

You can't have a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches without allowing the BATFE-I-E-I-O to conduct an anal probe whenever they wish, but you can buy a handgun with an overall length of 6 inches, unless you attach a butt-stock too it, then it's a no-no.

The restrictions are absurd, do nothing to protect anything except the jobs of the bureaucrats, and are tantamount to a prior restriction on the second amendment, since nobody can figure out what they are and aren't allowed to do with something, half the time.

:rant:

[slackmaster]

97. You actually can put a buttstock on a C96 if the gun was originally configured with one

They're NFA-exempt. The buttstock can even be a reproduction.

[Callisto32]

98. I'm sure I read that somewhere in the past, but thanks.

I was just talking about the basic provision against stocking a handgun.

[one-eyed fat man]

116. Curio and Relics List

Again, the government maintains a grand and colorful website, at our expense, to provide information on current Federal guns laws and how they apply to those who care. (Criminals do not plan on obeying them and some unicorn riding vegans refuse to believe them.)

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-11/atf-p-5300-11.pdf

The C96 Mauser pistol and LP-08 "Artillery" and P-04 Navy versions of the Luger pistol were added to the C&R List about 20 years ago. Prior to that installing the shoulder stocks that were original to those pistols was, indeed, and NFA violation.

Even now, while almost all German military P-08 pistol frames are able to accept the shoulder stock, attaching one to a standard 4 inch barrel version is still a felony.

Firearms Curios or Relics List

A regulation implementing Federal firearms laws, 27 CFR Section 478.11, defines C&R firearms as those "which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons."

To be recognized as C&R items, 478.11 specifies that firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

1. Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas of such firearms;
2. Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, State, or Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and
3. Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event.

Please note that firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) may be classified as C&R items, but still may be subject to the provisions of the NFA. If your C&R item is an NFA firearm (e.g., Winchester Trappers) and you desire removal from the NFA status, you must submit it to FTB for evaluation and a formal classification.

[gorfle]

21. It's simple.

So I can buy semi-automatic 9 mm handguns and, on occasion, sell them to any civilian without a NICS check if I replace the gun in my collection. "Gee, agent, he looked like an upstanding citizen to me. Sure he had a shaved head and he had picture ID with an address and everything. I swear I didn't see that swastika tattoo."

This is true for all private sales. Any private citizen can sell a firearm to any other private citizen without a background check, so long as the person selling the firearm does not know the buyer to be ineligible to own firearms.

The fact that you have a C&R license has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. All a C&R license does is allow private citizens to purchase "antique" firearms through the mail without having to conduct the transfer through an FFL dealer.

In all other respects you are just another private citizen and you can sell firearms to other citizens all you want without a background check.

[Euromutt]

36. You mean "Type 03 FFL," don't you?

"Class III" is generally vernacular for NFA stuff like machine guns, but that's not what you're talking about.

(For the uninitiated reading this, a Type 03 FFL allows a holder to purchase firearms designated as "Curios & Relics" by the ATF from out-of-state without the intercession of a Type 01 FFL (i.e. a gun dealer). "Curios & Relics" generally means antiques, and non-NFA military surplus weapons more than a few decades old (e.g. WWII-era bolt action and semi-automatic rifles, old military handguns etc.).

[defendandprotect]

7. NY Times: "Close the Gun Show Loophole" ...

Did you know that if gun dealers call themselves “private sellers” at gun shows, they can ignore the law and sell their guns to anyone -- no background check, no records made, no questions asked?



NY Times --
Listen to the Families
NY Times Editorial
April 27, 2010

There are two tragic anniversaries this month. It is 11 years since two Colorado students gunned down 12 of their fellow classmates and one teacher at Columbine High School and three years since 32 students and faculty members were gunned down at Virginia Tech.

Those horrors haven’t slowed the gun lobby’s relentless push to weaken the nation’s already far too weak gun laws — or Congress’s eagerness to do the gun lobby’s bidding. Last week, House Democrats had to pull back legislation that would have finally given the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress because of amendments tacked on to the bill that would have gutted local gun laws.

The only bright spot in all of this is that gun victims’ families and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, are fighting back. They have begun a campaign to get Congress to close the loophole that has allowed criminals, troubled teens and the mentally ill to evade federal background checks and purchase weapons from unlicensed private dealers at weekend gun shows.

The Columbine shooters used four high-powered weapons obtained by a friend, no questions asked, from “hobbyist” gun-show dealers. These shows are a leading source of illegally trafficked guns — a large number of guns recovered in crimes come from states that do not require gun show background checks.

Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California, all Democrats, have introduced a bill that would close the loophole nationally. It now has 17 sponsors. Shamefully missing from the list are Senator Mark Udall of Colorado and Senators James Webb and Mark Warner of Virginia.


http://www.closetheloophole.org/tellafriend

[Obamanaut]

8. same post here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8232008

[SteveM]

90. No loophole. Again. But I do note that DiFi had a concealed-carry permit.

[doc03]

9. There is no such gun show loop hole. Any individual

can sell a gun to another individual without a license without a background check. For someone that wants to sell a gun a gun show is a good place to go because there are people there that may be looking for the gun you are trying to sell. Myself I would prefer to be able to run a background check on a person before selling them a gun just for my own safety and peace of mind.

[Travis Coates]

11. How does

running a background check make YOU safer?

[doc03]

33. Well the SOB may come back and blow me or someone else

away the next day. All the guns I have ever sold I knew the person I sold it to, recorded the serial number of the gun, the date sold, who bought it and the price he paid. I would never sell any gun of mine to a stranger unless I was able to run a check on them. I have that information on file on for every gun I have ever sold over the last 40 years. I hope any gun I ever sold doesn't ever come up as a murder weapon.

[Travis Coates]

39. Your guns your choice (why does that sound familiar?)

I just don't think it makes you any safer

[doc03]

40. It would make everyone safer if everyone had to have

a background check to buy a gun. That's not the case so a least I try to do my part and sell them to responsible people. Keeping a gun out of a criminals hands makes all of us safer. Would you sell a gun to someone you knew wasn't permitted to purchase a gun?

[Travis Coates]

44. Logic fail

Criminals don't get their guns from legitimate sources now what makes you think a law prohibiting private sales would change that?

Do you think it might work as well as a law prohibiting ,say , the sale of marijuana?

Let me know how that works out for you

[doc03]

46. Criminals don't get guns from legitimate sources? Are you sure?

That McVey guy they arrested for stalking the President the other day had an Ohio Concealed Carry Permit. He could have bought his gun from any gun dealer in Ohio, out of the trunk of a car or at a gun show from a private sale. Someone got shot last night in my town, the shooter could have bought the gun by a private sale from the classifieds or at a gun show from a private party. All legitimate sources. You can't tell me every gun used in a crime is stolen.

[X_Digger]

48. 40% friends / family, 40% black market / illegal sources.

1.7% gun show / flea market

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[doc03]

61. Thanks you proved my point 60% of the guns

used in crime come from legitimate sources only 40% come from black market / illegal sources. I can believe only 1.7% come from purchases license firearms dealers, the private sales are (private) they are not documented. I saw others on this thread make the claim that all guns used in crime are black market or stolen.

[X_Digger]

63. read the link..

Only 13% are purchased retail in any shape or fashion. 80% are non-retail channels.

[doc03]

65. Nobody is arguing about retail, 40 % was from friends and family

there would have been no background checks and all completely legitimate sales. Nobody is wanting to shut down retail sales at gun shows it is the ones done off the record between private parties.

[X_Digger]

66. Well, I don't think you can lump the 40% in with private sales.

It could have been given to them, they could have stolen, or borrowed them.

If the friend / family member purchased them legally, nothing in a 'private sale' prohibition would stop that. (That 40% holds true, even in states that regulate private sales.)

eta: the 1.7% gun show / flea market are the source, not the means. If it was from an FFL, a background check was likely performed. Since we know that a huge majority of firearm offenders have a previous criminal record that would make them unable to pass an NICS check, they're probably private sales.

end result? The most this proposed legislation (were it constitutional- it ain't- intra-state commerce and all) would affect is ~1.7% of the guns used in crime.

[doc03]

69. I have been a firearms owner hunter and shooter all my life and

would have no problem if everyone had to take a NRA safety course and a background check to purchase a gun. I took the NRA safety training, a basic marksmanship test and a background check to get my CCW permit. I think it would be a good idea if everyone had to do the same to own a gun.

[X_Digger]

70. I can't get behind that..

Not for ownership. Too easily abused; too much impact to those least likely to have the money / time to meet it, and most likely to need a firearm for self-protection.

That's the same reason I despise the demonization of 'saturday night specials'- it hurts those in most need of a decent firearm at a reasonable price.

eta: clarification re 'abused'- who sets that bar, and what's to stop a raising of that bar as a means to deter ownership by making those classes expensive, infrequent, held at strange hours, etc.

[doc03]

71. The state has free boating safety courses

for boaters why not the same for guns.

[X_Digger]

72. If we didn't have examples of such abuse, I'd prolly be more amenable.

Curious, though, does the state require that boating safety course for registration?

(Last time I owned a boat was in VA, and there were no requirements other than having appropriate # of life jackets and a fire extinguisher.)

[Callisto32]

83. It's not free.

[Euromutt]

74. That may be stretching the definition of "legitimate source"

If you're a prohibited person--e.g. because you have a felony conviction or a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence--and a friend or family member transfers (sells, lends, whatever) a firearm to you, knowing that you're legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, thereby violating federal (and probably state) law, can we really call that a "legitimate source"? By that token, stealing the gun from a legal owner would also be a "legitimate source."

Part of the problem with the statistics from Firearm Use by Offenders (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) is that it's not very specific about the nature of the transaction. The acquisitions from friends and family very possibly include any number of straw purchases, which are crimes in and of themselves. And "gun shows" does not preclude acquisitions from FFLs. It's also unclear what the distinction is between an acquisition "off the street" and one from the "black market."

[Travis Coates]

79. You still haven't answered my previous question

How do you intend to enforce this?

ETA I want to see you answer that question W/out using the term "registration"

[doc03]

67. A funny thing happened to me a few years ago when I tried to

join a gun club. At their meeting the President asked me who my sponsor was and I said I didn't know I needed one. He said you have to have a sponsor they just can't let anyone join the club we want to be sure sure of your background. Seems funny to join a gun club they need to know your background but if I wanted to buy a gun they think there should be zero restrictions. They don't want a thief in their club but yet they have no problem arming him. Then there was another club I asked about, they want you to come in person to be voted in, the VP of the club said it was just to be sure you were white.

[X_Digger]

68. Apples to Oranges to me..

Private organization v public policy. (Though the last does sound disgusting.)

[defendandprotect]

52. Did they ever catch the guys who supplied the Columbine guns . . .????

[X_Digger]

58. Yes. Robyn Anderson & Mark Manes.

Anderson was 18 at the time of the purchase, making the purchase legal. (There is conflicting evidence whether she gifted the guns to the pair or made a straw purchase.) Manes was convicted of providing a handgun to a minor. Manes' purchase of the handgun, however, was legal.

In short, no law that Bloomberg wants to have passed would have prevented these purchases.

[Euromutt]

73. Anderson wasn't charged, but according to her own words, it was a straw purchase

She said later, on Good Morning America IIRC, that she'd bought the guns with Harris & Klebold's money; that's the textbook definition of a straw purchase.

[defendandprotect]

107. And, presto . . . one Columbine -- !!

[X_Digger]

108. Ahh, I wish you didn't have me on ignore, I could refer you to #58. n/t

[Euromutt]

112. Through the ILLEGAL actions of the people who got Harris & Klebold the guns

Manes bought the TEC-DC9 legally, but then sold it illegally to Klebold. Anderson's purchase of the three long guns was, by her own admission, a straw purchase (she bought the guns with Harris & Klebold's money), which is also illegal. So there were no loopholes, any more than the fact that it is physically possible to rob a bank means that there's a "bank robbery loophole."

[defendandprotect]

120. Every gun has to be registered and insured by the owner . . .

[Pavulon]

123. Done, mine are on my homeowners.. You probably mean liability

got that covered too with an umbrella policy for the wife and me. Now that 2 million dollar policy covers her in medicine but I bet if I had an at fault car accident its existence greatly increases my chances of being sued.

What is the point of registration? It is not guys like me who follow the law out stacking bodies.

[Euromutt]

127. That's a statement of desire, not of fact

And it goes well beyond "closing the (so-called) gun show loophole."

[defendandprotect]

141. Necessity is the Mother of Invention . . . how much damage are guns doing . . .

$38,000 per wounding in our hospital emergency rooms --

Registering a gun and insuring it would provide some relief for taxpayers who

are picking up those costs!!

[Remmah2]

10. NY Times Reality Check

What torques my nuts is the inexperience the NY Times writers have. I would wager none has ever gone through the process of purchasing a firearm or applying for a CCW. The information they use and qualifies as heresay. No first hand experience, hence not qualified to write on the subject. Monday morning quarterbacks.

[defendandprotect]

53. Yeah . . . what they've missed is brainwashing ....

by the GOP/NRA . . .!!

[Pavulon]

78. Or the ATF or LAW you know reality

and unless you want to piss off people with stupid laws and elect the GOP, leave stupid gun laws alone.

[one-eyed fat man]

12. Why is it so hard to accept?

Hey, before you go spouting unsubstantiated drivel, why not go to ATF.gov? They have an FAQ and a nifty website your tax money pays for. You can read the law for yourself. You won't like what it says because it contradicts you at every point, but the ATF is the agency which enforces Federal gun laws, the 'real ones' not the ones made up ones.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faqindex.h...

(C10) May a person obtain a dealer's license to engage in business only at gun shows?

No. A license may only be issued for a permanent premises at which the license applicant intends to do business. A person having such license may conduct business at gun shows located in the State in which the licensed premises is located and sell and deliver curio or relic firearms to other licensees at any location.

<18 U.S.C. 923(a) and (j)>


B. UNLICENSED PERSONS

(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

<18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30>

(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

<18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30>

(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State?

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

<18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)>

The law requires anyone who sells guns as a business or in interstate commerce to have a license. There is no provision for being a dealer for some guns and not others. There is no provision for pretending you are not an FFL at a gun show. If you have an FFL you have to comply with all the rules, all the time. Any statement to the contrary is mistaken at best or an outright, deliberate, fucking, lie at worst!

If you are in the business of selling guns, you need a license. If you transfer a gun across a state line, you need a license.

The ATF talks in terms of licensees and non-licensees for a reason. Those terms are defined. "Unlicensed dealer" is a bullshit made up term. The "gun-show loop-hole" is a bullshit made up term. Actually, what is so insane, is you post the answers from the government's own website, and since it disagrees with what the Brady Campaign claims, the usual suspects will mindlessly keep repeating the same tired mantra as the ATF must be wrong!

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Actually, they guy selling guns out of the trunk of his car is an unlicensed dealer.

What he does is sell guns. It is his business. He has no license.

What is 'made up' about that?

[slackmaster]

18. What you describe is illegal - He's a gun runner, not an "unlicensed dealer"

You can't engage in the business of dealing guns without a license.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. And that is exactly what I said.

Obviously, if he is doing it he CAN engage in the business of dealing guns without a license. Everybody is in agreement that it is illegal - but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

There is a difference between what you 'can' do and what is legal to do. Unlicensed dealers are exactly that.

[slackmaster]

24. Which has nothing to do with gun shows

Illegal gun dealing can occur anywhere.

Gun shows provide opportunities for law enforcement people to monitor a lot of people at once. A gun runner who frequented gun shows would be putting himself at great risk of getting caught.

[doc03]

41. If I wanted to sell my .40 cal semi auto all I would have to do is

go to a gun show and carry it around and I could sell it to anyone, a Charlie Manson or whoever.

[slackmaster]

50. You don't have to go to a gun show to sell your pistol

You can sell it anywhere, any time to anyone you do not know to be prohibited from owning it.

I wish there was a way for you to do a background check, because I'm sure you would if you could, but there isn't.

[defendandprotect]

54. Why not totally track every gun --- same way we track car sales . . . which are often private ...??

[X_Digger]

59. You don't have to register the private sale of a car that will not be on public roads.

Farm vehicles and race cars being the perfect example.

[slackmaster]

86. Unconstitutional and not worth the money it would cost

What good would it do?

[defendandprotect]

104. Where does it say it's "unconstitutional" to register guns???

What good would it do?

We'd know who the last owner of the gun was.

Or does everyone gun owner's gun get stole?

[X_Digger]

106. See #105. n/t

[SteveM]

91. Ever heard of a Ranch Rocket? Grove Truck? Keys Cruiser?...

Some of the many terms for vehicles left on private lands to haul hay, oranges, pick up shot deer and transport barbed wire. They are UNLICENSED vehicles that never see public roads.

[doc03]

62. No you don't have to go to a gun show to sell it but if you want to

sell a gun that is an excellent place to find a buyer. All a firearms dealer does is make a phone call to sell you a gun, it takes maybe 5 minutes at the most. I would have no problem paying a firearms dealer $5.00 to make the call for me. The firearms dealer makes a few bucks, no 2nd Amendment rights are violated and you are sure someone with a record isn't getting the gun.

[slackmaster]

87. Newspaper classified ads work just fine too

All a firearms dealer does is make a phone call to sell you a gun...

And charge a fee. A private-party transfer in California, done through a dealer, adds as much as $35 to the price of a sale.

[oneshooter]

100. In Texas and several other states, no phone call is needed.

If you have a CHL. In Texas the CHL means that you have had a background check that equils that of the NCIS check.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Travis Coates]

25. So this criminal doesn't obey existing laws

and you think he'll obey your new ones?

How is this going to hamper anyone but law abiding citizens?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. So what's the BFD then?

I CAN murder someone... it doesn't make it legal and everybody agrees on this.
I CAN grow pot and sell it... It doesn't mean it's legal and everybody agrees on this.

Do either of these events indicate there is a LOOPHOLE that needs to be closed?
NO!!! If one acts OUTSIDE the law then clearly loopholes are not being employed.

[one-eyed fat man]

30. The crap about a loophole

The guy selling guns out of the back of his car is a criminal engaged in a criminal activity; so far we agree.

The guy selling dope on the corner is a criminal engaged in criminal activity; we probably still agree.

The likelihood of guy number one renting a table at a gunshow is about the same as guy number two renting a booth at the peddler's mall. Which is about as likely OP ordering a rare steak!

An FFL has to comply with the same laws at a gunshow he does in his store, just like a pharmacist has to comply with the same laws whether you pick up your prescription or he delivers it.

In addition to the Federal requirements, some states regulate private sales of guns, and all those requirement still apply at gunshows.

If you inherit a closet full of guns you have no interest in and you sell them in a yard sale, in a newspaper ad or even Craigslist as long as you do not knowingly sell to a prohibited person or across a state line, Federal law does not and cannot, extend to purely intrastate sales of legal and legally held personal property.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. If he is selling guns out of his trunk "as a business"...

He is operating his business without a License (FFL) ILLEGALLY. You said so yourself, "It is his business. He has no license."
If his intentions are to engage in multiple firearms sales as a source of revenue (business) then he is breaking the law.
The ATF determines your intent and they have a very wide legal berth in doing so. This is a law based on INTENT.
If they think you are breaking the law... best of luck and be sure your loved ones mail you plenty of Vaseline.

If you doubt me, please write a letter to the ATF. They will clarify.

[Euromutt]

37. That's not how the term is commonly used, though

Generally, when you encounter the term "unlicensed dealer," it is in the context of private sellers selling their privately owned firearms at gun shows. And in that context, the term is mendacious, since a private citizen who doesn't derive a substantial portion of his income from selling firearms is legally not a dealer. It's comparable to referring to someone who sells a couple of his privately owned cars as an "unlicensed car dealer."

[flamin lib]

27. So what you're saying is that it isn't a "gun show loophole" but a

much larger loophole. If licensed FFLs have to do background checks, why not private citizens?

There are lots of precedents for regulating what can be legally sold person to person.

Why not guns?

[Pavulon]

28. Or plasma tv's, golf clubs, or fine art.

this is a stupid pet issue pushed by people whose ship sailed when newt walked in on the AWB. This is a non issue.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

29. It's not a loophole at all.

The federal status quo is, and always has been, open sale of property rights. The laws are NO DIFFERENT at a gunshow than any other inch of property within a state... no different whatsoever. There is EXCEPTION to the status quo for people who are specifically licensed to sell firearms --> they are more heavily scrutinized because they deal with a MUCH larger flow of firearms and are the ONLY public outlet for gun manufacturers. Congress came up with a gain a fair share of control over the flow of factory-new guns straight to criminals without infringing of the rights of citizens. If you're going to buy and sell dozens of firearms a day then it would be wise to be sure you are selling to authorized customers. I believe this exception is common sense.

It really all boils to enforceability. FFLs are few and far between - it is manageable to regulate them.
How do you enforce a ban of private firearm sales without checks?

[flamin lib]

31. Seems to me that we sell as many cars to each other as we do

guns. They are probably the only commodity that equals firearms in volume. Every auto purchase has to go through the state DOT.

There are a lot of items that are regulated in person to person sales. Firearms shouldn't be any different.

I personally think that every firearm should be licensed by serial number to the purchaser (they actually are if bought through an FFL) and data-based at the federal level. I also think buyers should be licensed to buy like drivers are licensed to drive. I'm realistic enough to know that it will never happen because of our unique and slightly crazy culture and even if it did happen nothing would change at the street level for fifty years.

Okay, flame on . . .

[Pavulon]

32. That is for tax purposes. State is trying to get my amazon purchase records right now

not to protect me, to tax me.

No need for a regulator for VAST majority of commerce, none needed here.

Real changes happen if you address root cause, drug law and mental health. Firearm regs are not really a variable.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. You're missing the point though... lack of enforceability ensures the ease of private sale.

FFLs can be regulated because there are not very many of them and, more importantly, EVERY firearm they have is logged and accounted for --> Registration. Comprehensive and meticulous maintenance of records allows this ad hoc network of dealer gun registration to function. It is this network alone (once again, supported by stringent regulation of dealers) that props up the feasibility and enforcement of the FFL system. With oversight and enforcement, it is basically a self supporting system.

In short... if you want to monitor EVERY sale in America you have to know where every firearm in america is - the lineage of who owned it previously and who it is being sold to. There are only TWO solutions to this problem: Centralized registration (Canadian Model) or ad-hoc registration (FFL Model).

Ad-Hoc
Yes, there is registration in america and FFLs make it possible everyday. And it's legal too! One reason it's legal is that being an FFL is selective and in no way necessary to own firearms. It is not a restriction on the ability to keep or bear arms - only a business/commerce requirement. The only way an ad-hoc style of record keeping would work for EVERY private sale in america would be if EVERY private citizen were subject to the stringent requirements of FFL book-keeping and had access to the NICS background checks. This creates two problems: 1)Undue burden related directly to the ownership of guns (2A violation), 2) This creates an insurmountable network of paperwork for the BATFE to track. it's would be a logistic nightmare.
So one says, "Just require ALL purchases to go though an FFL like Kommiefornia." Well, that might work but for the fact that every dealer charges money to transfer a firearm. Often times, the amount of money is not trivial and it places where FFL transfer is required the rates are notably higher due to collusion. It could be argues paying a fee to exercise your 2A rights to own/buy a gun are unconstitutional (see: poll tax).

Centralized Registration
This is terrible. Firstly, it doesn't work and is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money. Secondly, in America there are federal laws against the formation of centralized registration lists. Otherwise said, Firearm registries are expressly forbidden and illegal. Not to mention, registries historically have led to confiscation using the list itself. This phenomenon undermines a core pillar of the system that the registrants must have faith & register with a high degree of participation. That's about all that needs said for this strategy.

So I go back to a question I posed previously: "How do you regulate EVERY private firearm sale in america?'
Bonus points if you can figure out how to locate the already disseminated ~300,000,000 firearms.

[flamin lib]

95. Okay

1. Copy the DOT auto registration system. It's not centralized but co-operation between states works out well.

Oh, but what if a gun is truly lost, ie fell overboard in the Atlantic? The registered owner files a form with the state telling what happened to the gun and declaring it no longer in his possession, ie not my problem. Here in TX it's not mandatory but if the motor vehicle/gun turns up in an accident/crime they don't come after you.

Oh, but what if the gun is never used on public property? Just like the '78 280Z parked in my garage it isn't germane to the discussion.

In the opening to this sub-thread I said very clearly that it would take 50-75 years for this to make any difference to existing guns. However, eventually almost all guns would fall into one of four categories:
1 they're legally registered
2 they're confiscated (and destroyed) for use in a crime
3 they're locked in a closet next to my 280Z out of the system and not germane
4 they don't fit in one of four categories (little levity there)

It works for autos and I suspect that the volume of the two commodities is pretty close with the volume of transactions being higher for cars.

[one-eyed fat man]

42. Cars and taxes.

The Kentucky Revenue Cabinet has decided if you sell more than 3 cars in a year you are a "dealer." This "magic number" has to do with sales taxes. If you buy or sell a car to a private individual, you do a bill of sale, they register the car if they are going to drive it on a public highway and that's that. The occasional sale between private parties is tax exempt.

If you are a "Dealer" the Commonwealth wants 6% of the selling price. They don't much care if you don't collect it as long as you pay it. And you aren't going to get away with saying you sold it for a buck either, they will assess it at "Bluebook retail"!

Unless you are hopelessly naive, if you EVER bought a car from an individual and all he had was a signed bill of sale from the guy HE got it from, you are likely dealing with a guy who fixes up cars on the side to resell. The reason he never titles anything to try and stay under the tax man's radar.

The other 'gotcha' with sales tax is if they demand payment, you have to pay. If it turns out that you are not liable for the disputed tax, you will still be assessed the penalties for not making payment when demanded.

[PavePusher]

94. I think you are quite mistaken.

Guns are a very small volume business in our economy. IIRC, firearms and all accesories (ammunition, scopes, parts, cleaning supplies, etc.) are less than $3B/year.

[rrneck]

43. Well said. nt

[defendandprotect]

55. Right ... you can't sell a car without reporting it -- transferring registration ... should be same

with guns!!

[Pavulon]

80. Or ipods, or fine art, or golf clubs.

the vehicle comparison is not fitting, that is done to ensure the state can collect taxes.

[SteveM]

92. If you treat this forum seriously, you will see this has come up...

"So what you're saying is that it isn't a "gun show loophole" but a much larger loophole. If licensed FFLs have to do background checks, why not private citizens? There are lots of precedents for regulating what can be legally sold person to person.

"Why not guns?"

This forum has seen considerable debate among 2A defenders over the advisability of requiring ALL citizens to use a NICS-type test, much of it favorable. There are problems with the constitutionality of some proposals, costs of administering such, what entity should administer a NICS-type system, etc. But it is debated in detail, here.

Unfortunately, most of the regular gun-controllers/prohibitionists are not interested because it does not serve their interests: prohibitions, bans and culture war. Please reference some of these past debates (one was about a week ago).

This is why there is no "gun show loophole:" from the beginning, the legislation was designed for dealers, not individuals. The key term if FEDERAL Firearms License (holder).

[flamin lib]

96. "There are problems with the constitutionality "

Only if the Supreme Court agrees on every aspect of the arguments made here.

So far they've said the 2A is an individual right but have left the door open for local and state restrictions. We'll sort through those many permutations of ownership vs law as time goes on.

I suspect the court will come to rue the day they decided to open that can of worms. If they had simply relied on the universal right of self defense or self preservation and laid it at the 10A they wouldn't have to deal with so may state and local "what ifs?". 'Course, citing the 10th is even a bigger can of worms . . .

[defendandprotect]

103. It's a right wing, perverted Supreme Court -- and most of us are hoping for big changes there!!

[X_Digger]

105. Actually, the constitutional portion is pretty fundamental..

.. congress doesn't have the authority to get between private sales between two in-state residents. (Intra-state commerce versus inter-state commerce.)

[doc03]

34. It is common practice for any individual that wants to sell a gun

to put a price tag on a gun, walk around the show room and they sell the gun to anyone that wants it. Cash, no background check, no nothing. If a Charlie Manson happens to show up at the show he can buy anything he sees in a private sale.

[Travis Coates]

45. Logic fail two

Gun shows are almost overrun W/ various forms of police. Any criminal that went to one to purchase a fire arm would be exposing himself to their scrutiny. If gunshows are such a source of crime guns why are less than 2% of them purchased there?

[doc03]

47. How would they possibly know what percentage was bought

from a private party at gun shows, there are no records of the sale. If I make a private sale at a gun show who would would know? They have no idea how many guns are bought and sold at gun shows by private parties. That's what the NRA does, they come up with some statistic nobody could prove one way or the other and state it as a fact.

[X_Digger]

49. That stat is from the Department of Justice.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[defendandprotect]

56. That certainly seems to be the case . . . and we always have the

GOP/NRA here telling us about the "criminals with illegal guns" --

Only way they can get an "illegal" gun is for someone to be selling it to them!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. What's so fucking hard to understand...

It is illegal for an FFL to sell firearms on his books "as a private citizen".
It is illegal to engage in selling firearms as a business without an FFL.
IF YOU ARE SELLING FIREARMS TO PEOPLE AS A (BLACK MARKET) BUSINESS THEN YOU ARE BREAKING SOME LAWS SOMEWHERE.

It is legal to sell a personal firearm occasionally as private citizen. You cannot be engaged in bulk sales, many quick turnarounds, or buying selling guns solely for profit (business venture). Basically, there's no effective/efficient way to be lucrative selling grey market guns legally without crossing the threshold of needing to be a dealer.

The scary part about this is that it is the ATF who determines if your acting like a business or collector. Anyone with any experience or news exposure of the ATF knows that is THE WRONG agency to toy with. Very powerful, very haphazard, and they don't take no jibba-jabba from from fools while simultaneously pitying them. I suspect Mr T writes their procedural manuals. If you get caught selling "too many private guns" in a short period, you will get accused as dealing without an FFL. Good luck defending yourself against a government agency who is not only prosecuting you with unlimited funding... but they wrote the rules and interpret/clarify them as well.

[defendandprotect]

57. Someone is certainly moving "illegal" guns along -- any ideas on how it happens?

[Euromutt]

76. According to the ATF, primarily by crooked FFLs

There's probably a fair amount that happens via straw purchases as well.

Either route is already illegal; there's no "loophole."

[defendandprotect]

102. If it's happening . . . there's a "loophole" . . . and needs attention -- !!

[gorfle]

22. I'm all for universal background checks...

I'm all for universal background checks, so long as we preserve firearm ownership anonymity.

[doc03]

35. I am with you, I would like to be able to run a background check

myself on anyone I would sell a gun to. Since I can't I only sell the gun to someone I personally know to be a responsible law abiding individual.

[defendandprotect]

51. Ah . . . here we are again . . . how convenient --

we wouldn't want people outside the Gun Dungeon to see anything like this,

would we? Dangerous concept!!

:eyes:

[Euromutt]

75. You don't like it, PM the mods

It's not like any of the pro-RKBA regulars are coercing or bribing the mods to dump every firearm-related thread in here. They do it because gun-related threads tend to get flame-heavy.

Or did you think the mods have also been brainwashed by the all-encompassing NRA/GOP/Military-Industrial Complex/Illuminati/"Cabal of International Bankers"/Patriarchy conspiracy?
:tinfoilhat:

[defendandprotect]

109. So any info counter to GOP/NRA/Supreme/2nd Amendment .... is "flame heavy"???

And can't be seen in General?

Or did you think the mods have also been brainwashed by the all-encompassing NRA/GOP/Military-Industrial Complex/Illuminati/"Cabal of International Bankers"/Patriarchy conspiracy?

Glad you agree on GOP/NRA brainwashing --
and are closely following my posts!!




:rofl:

[Euromutt]

113. No, any gun-related topic tends to cause emotions to run high, on all sides

Which means discussions are liable to get more fierce; so, the mods shunt anything and everything involving firearms in here, so as not to let gun-related topics dominate the general-interest areas of the board (to the annoyance of members who don't care very much about firearms and firearm policy).

Or so I surmise (having been a mod on another discussion forum several years ago).

[defendandprotect]

119. Guns and emotions . . . hmmm...

Well, that can be made even more emotional with permitting loaded with guns

patrons to get loaded in bars!! Another bright idea by GOP/NRA to sell guns.

No, any gun-related topic tends to cause emotions to run high, on all sides
Which means discussions are liable to get more fierce; so, the mods shunt anything and everything involving firearms in here, so as not to let gun-related topics dominate the general-interest areas of the board (to the annoyance of members who don't care very much about firearms and firearm policy).

Or so I surmise (having been a mod on another discussion forum several years ago).

Right -- because it's information the general public doesn't need to think about!!

Or be aware of!!




:eyes:

[Euromutt]

136. Like I said, take it up with the moderators

It's not like the pro-RKBA crowd who frequent the Guns forum monitor every thread and demand that all gun-related ones be moved here to keep the general membership uninformed; it is the mods' policy to do that.

And sheez, the "guns in bars" distortion again? The push to permit carrying in establishments that serve alcoholic beverages on the premises, but not as their primary source of income. Like restaurants. And you did notice, I hope, that the laws passed in Tennessee and Arizona prohibit persons carrying from drinking while they are carrying?

[SteveM]

93. Oh, yeah, we NEVER see "anything like this." Not for the last 3 days...

Are you serious about these problems? Would you support a universal background test which did not impose undue expense and burden upon buyers & purchasers, and which protected against gun-registration and passed Constitutional muster? This debate has been on-going in this forum for YEARS.

So what is your stance? What is your proposal? Let's hear it, now.

[Travis Coates]

60. Question for those who want to "close the loophole"

Are you not aware that prior to 1968 there was NO BACK GROUND CHECK whatever on firearms sales? I could walk into my local Ace Hardware or Sears and buy a gun cash and walk out and crime rates were much lower.

Hypothesis: It ain't the guns stupid

[X_Digger]

64. You mean 1994?

That's when the mandatory background check came in..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

Now, 1968 was when the 'prohibited persons' categories were established. It prohibited mail order guns, and established the FFL system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Prior to 1968, you could get a gun at ace hardware, but between 1968-1993 there was no background check.

eta: added links

[Travis Coates]

77. Thanks for backstopping me NNTO

[oneshooter]

101. Yes. And you could order them from catalogs.

To be mailed directly to your home.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[defendandprotect]

110. We need registration and insurance on guns . . . and an award for

most inane slogan ever thought up by right wing --

"Guns don't kill people -- " !!!!




:rofl:

[Travis Coates]

114. How does that ,in any way, answer my question? NNTO

[defendandprotect]

118. No -- I was NOT "not aware" --

Question for those who want to "close the loophole"
Are you not aware that prior to 1968 there was NO BACK GROUND CHECK whatever on firearms sales? I could walk into my local Ace Hardware or Sears and buy a gun cash and walk out and crime rates were much lower.

Hypothesis: It ain't the guns stupid

We still need to register and insure every gun and gun owner --


"Guns don't kill people" --



:rofl:

[Travis Coates]

125. Another question

Are you aware that Cana-duh has already tried this (and spent billions doing so) and it FAILED miserably?

[defendandprotect]

132. Let's prove it for ourselves . . . register every gun and insure guns/owners....

[Callisto32]

81. If they are selling a "private" gun, they are.

If I have an FFL I can never sell a personal gun as any other private citizen? Absurd on its face.

[Euromutt]

84. It does impose a heavier burden of evidence that the gun sold was indeed personal

I'm given to understand that, as a rule of thumb, it's inadvisable for an FFL to transfer a firearm from his "bound book" FFL inventory to his private collection, and then sell it privately within six months. Or to make a habit of doing so.

But even so, what's the problem? In principle, as an FFL, you can "sell" the gun from your private citizen persona to your FFL persona, and then sell it as an FFL for the same price you would have asked as a private citizen. What's the major problem here?

[Callisto32]

85. I have no problem with it.

I put private in quotes for emphasis, rather than using all caps. Maybe a bad choice on my part.

I meant, if they are selling a private gun, they are a private seller and should be allowed to sell as any other citizen transferring private property.

I think if I were an FFL I would just buy all my own guns that I intended to sell off, say if I didn't like it, from another dealer, to avoid an conflicts.

[SteveM]

88. You got it wrong, and you need to be told this...

An FFL dealer cannot willy-nilly decide to be "dealer" one day, and not a dealer another. I think you know this, but hey! it's the Internet where you can make up anything you want. But keep in mind that your fiction doesn't even comport with the NYT's contrived fiction.

[aikoaiko]

99. And some people think only the NRA mongers fear and distorts the truth about guns.

For fucks sake, defendandprotect, have you no shame?

[defendandprotect]

111. If GOP/NRA fear mongers don't have any shame about what they're doing . . .

who should?

Lies, distortions -- all part of the GOP/NRA game playing from guns to Wall Street --

and cap it off with Supremes covering for them from 2000/W to Corporate "personhood."

"Guns don't kill people . . . "

Now that is about as shameless as you can get!



:evilgrin:

[aikoaiko]

115. No, I think you are more shameless, because there is at least a kernel of truth in NRA exaggerations...

Not so much with your OP.

[defendandprotect]

117. So you agree with GOP/NRA . . .

that "Guns don't kill people -- " ????

[aikoaiko]

121. I think there is more truth to "guns don't kill people" than your OP

Firearms, especially not defective firearms, don't shoot themselves.

[defendandprotect]

122. What if there is no gun?

Does someone shoot you with their finger?

[Pavulon]

124. Prior to the invention of the handgun, murder never happened.

I mean the word murder was not even invented until the first gun was made.

[one-eyed fat man]

126. Greek myth records

there was an island full of lesbian warriors that cut a breast off so they could shoot a bow better? Bows don't kill people? Boobless bimboes do?

:rofl:

[Euromutt]

129. You're slightly confusing separate elements

You're thinking of the Amazons; they weren't lesbians per se, but just didn't have a lot of use for men except as sperm donors. They also supposedly lived on the northern shores of the Black Sea, in present-day Ukraine.

The "island full of lesbians" you're thinking of is Lesbos, birthplace of the poetess Sappho, who wrote a bunch of poems about love and passion for various persons of both genders. A lot of what is supposedly known about her is actually speculation, and indeed outright fabrication.

[defendandprotect]

131. Your post with ....

"ignorned" . . . what do lesbians have to do with the gun loophole?

[one-eyed fat man]

133. Lesbians don't kill people too? n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

134. I get all those legends mixed up.

Amazons, Valkyries, Lorelei, Sirens, Harpies, mythology is full of vexatious females.

[Euromutt]

128. There are other ways of killing people other than with firearms

In the period 1300-1350, the murder rate in London varied between 30 and 50 per 100,000 population; in Germany, the murder rate varied between 20 and 100/100,000. The current US murder rate is between 5 and 6/100,000. Note that in the early 14th century, manportable firearms had not yet been introduced in Europe.

Sheez, use your imagination. People can be killed by being stabbed, hacked, beaten, strangled or poisoned to death, to name a few examples. The Green River Killer may have murdered more than 90 women (making him the most prolific murderer in American history), all of them by strangulation.

And it's more than a little facile to ridicule a slogan when you don't quote it in its entirety; you know as well as I do that the complete line is "guns don't kill people, people kill people." A gun is an inanimate object: it cannot load itself, aim itself at a human being, and cause itself to discharge. It takes a human to do all that. Similarly, knives don't cut or stab people by themselves, baseball bats, hockey sticks, brass candlesticks, and TV tray tables don't beat people to death by themselves, cars don't crash into people by themselves, etc. etc. All these items don't kill people unless there's a person operating them.

[defendandprotect]

130. Right . . . so why guns?

[Euromutt]

135. "Why guns" for what?

"Why guns" for homicide? "Why guns" for self-defense? "Why guns" for law enforcement? "Why 'guns don't kill people'" instead of "knives/bats/axes/hammers/cars/TV tray tables don't kill people"?

[defendandprotect]

137. If there are so many alternate weapons, why do you need guns?

[Euromutt]

139. Because guns are the "Great Equalizer"

They enable a person to negate the advantage held by an opponent who's bigger, stronger, meaner, better practiced at hurting people, and possibly armed. Statistics from the National Criminal Victim Survey indicate that using a firearm to repel an assailant is the most effective means of avoiding injury and property loss (not resisting is equally effective at preventing injury, but significantly less effective at preventing property loss). Guns are, given current technology, the most reliably effective way of stopping a person who is presenting an imminent threat to innocent life or limb.

[defendandprotect]

140. A knife can also be an "equalizer" . . . Come on, you can tell us . . .

Because a gun can be concealed . . . and still used --

Because a gun is faster at killing than any other weapon --

Because a gun is the most effective way of reacting to a person who might spit on you --

Because a gun is the most reliably effective way of ending any threat --

Because a gun permits you to do fatal harm to someone without the slightest risk to yourself --


And for all of those reasons, we can see that it is the weapon most easily used on impulse --

in reaction to emotion -- and in reaction to a temporary fear -- even to a non-existing fear.

And for its speed -- and for its ability to be used at some distance -- it allows for the

least emotion to come between any second thought and actually shooting the gun.

And for all of those reasons, it's a danger to us all and to peaceful society.

[DissedByBush]

138. NYT: Close the loophole in your head n/t