When even gun controllers doubt the existence of the "gun show loophole"....

[friendly_iconoclast]

...folks like me should be forgiven our skepticism:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006326#t=article


Private-Party Gun Sales, Regulation, and Public Safety
Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H., Anthony A. Braga, Ph.D., and David M. Kennedy

N Engl J Med 2010; 363:508-511August 5, 2010

.....Concerns about private-party gun sales and the importance of gun shows as a source of guns used in crimes have led to repeated calls for closing the “gun show loophole” — by which advocates usually mean requiring that private-party sales at gun shows be routed through a licensed retailer who will do a background check and keep a record of the purchase. President Barack Obama endorsed such a measure during his 2008 presidential campaign, as did President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Legislation to close the loophole has been introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but no hearings have been scheduled.

In fact, there is no gun-show loophole as such. Federal law is silent on the issue of gun shows and permits private-party gun sales to occur anywhere. As a result, such a limited measure might well have no detectable effect on the rates of firearm-related violent crime. Gun shows account for a small percentage of all gun sales in the United States — between 4 and 9%, according to the best estimates available. Similarly, they account for just 3 to 8% of all private-party gun sales. Legislation to close the gun-show loophole would not affect the great majority of private-party sales, and motivated illicit buyers could simply find private sellers elsewhere. (In addition, closing the alleged loophole would not necessarily reduce, by more than a small amount, the importance of gun shows as a source of guns used in crimes. Most sales at gun shows — more than 80%, according to unpublished data — are made by licensed retailers, not private parties, and data from gun-trafficking investigations indicate that two thirds of the guns used in crimes that have been linked to gun shows were sold by licensed retailers)....

This makes Michael Bloomberg's recent attempts to gin up a moral panic over gun shows appear even more seamy and cynical.

[spin]

1. I would like to see a system that allows ALL private sales ...

to go through an NICS background check.

Currently I limit my sales of firearms to people I personally know who have a valid Concealed Weapons Permit. This limits any sales I wish to make considerably, so it's a good thing that I rarely sell a firearm.

I believe a system could be set up so that a potential buyer and I could go to a gun store and have an NICS background check preformed for a reasonable fee of $10 to $20. If the buyer passed the check, I could sell the firearms to him without worry. I really can't see a need for any data about the firearms being sold (such as serial numbers or type) to be recorded by the dealer.

I would get a receipt from the dealer for the cost of the background check and it would have the buyers name and info and the fact that he had passed the NICS check. If I chose, I might fill out a list of the firearms and serial numbers and have both the dealer and the buyer sign the list. The list would stay with me unless the buyer also wanted a copy.

[old mark]

4. Here in PA, it is illegal to record the SN's of guns sold even by licensed dealers. BUT

the PA state police do it anyway, and have since the 1930's, in knowing violation of the law.

mark

[lawodevolution]

2. It's already illegal to sell a gun to a banned person in a private sale.

Ban private sales and the only effect will be more people reporting "stolen" guns.

[safeinOhio]

5. Yes it is illegal, but only if you know the person

is a felon.

from the article
"although it is always illegal for certain classes of people to buy a gun, it is illegal to sell a gun to such people only if the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe that he or she is doing so. Unscrupulous private sellers may simply avoid asking questions that would lead to such revelations."

[jazzhound]

3. Hell has frozen over and pigs are flying.

These statements are now indisputable, as Wintemute has written something honest, and the NEJM has actually published it!!!

[safeinOhio]

6. Yes he has written something honest

I suggest you read more of it from the article..

A more effective approach would be to subject all private-party gun sales to the screening and record-keeping requirements that apply to sales by licensed retailers. Six states do so already, and nine others regulate all sales of handguns (see map

State Procedures for Regulating Private-Party Gun Sales, According to Gun Type and Ven



Screening works. In 2008, under the terms of the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, federal and state agencies conducted 9,900,711 checks initiated by licensed retailers and denied 147,080 purchases (1.5%). Long-term observational studies in California show that denial, in turn, is associated with a roughly 25% decrease in the risk that the would-be purchaser will later commit a crime involving guns or violence. Unfortunately, the effect of such regulations when they are implemented at the state level, as they usually are, is blunted by the lack of similar requirements in other states. Similarly, perhaps the principal reason for the well-documented failure of the Brady Act to lower rates of firearm-related homicide is that its requirements do not apply to private-party gun sales.4 Regulating all private-party sales, by contrast, would have measurable benefits.5

Drawbacks with respect to expense and inconvenience notwithstanding, 83% of self-reported gun owners and 87% of the general population endorsed regulation for all private-party gun sales in a 2008 poll that was conducted for the advocacy organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Gun owners gave stronger support to this all-inclusive approach than to a gun-show-only proposal in a 2009 poll conducted for the same organization. Either proposal would face tough sledding on Capitol Hill. It would therefore seem preferable to move forward with the version that is most likely to reduce the rates of firearm-related violence.


I with you on this(a first) in agreeing with the article. Thanks

[safeinOhio]

7. If it were called the correct name,

"background checks on private handgun sales" and not the misnomer "gun show law", just like the usual misnomer and incorrect "assault weapon" name being applied by the ignorant it would be less offensive to the public.

[one-eyed fat man]

9. Who arrests the criminals?

It is a crime for a felon to attempt to buy a gun.

When a crook goes to buy a gun, and fails the background check, what happens? The crooks finds out that the database is current. He already knew he was a crook. You make a phone call and now the FBI knows he's a crook and tells you to deny the sale, but they don't tell YOU why.

But the FBI now knows where the crook is right then, in a process of committing a crime. What happens?

NOTHING!

Unless after you tell the crook "NO," he decides to rob you.

Does the FBI tell you to stall him while they send the cops to arrest his law-breaking ass? Nope.

Are you going to draw down on him, rough him, cuff him and drag him off to jail? Hell no!

Charles Manson could break jail, walk into a gun store, fail the NICS check and walk right back out after finding out the FBI has his name in a computer database in West Virginia.

Big Fucking Whoop!

The odds of a criminal, even a wanted criminal with current warrants, getting arrested for illegally attempting to buy a gun (even failing the NICS check) are about the same as him hitting the lottery.

[safeinOhio]

13. But, the good part is

he couldn't purchase the gun.
I think the other part has something to do with the 5th Amendment. By saying he was illegally buying the gun he would be incriminating himself in an illegal transaction. Not sure, but my guess. I'm more concern with keeping the gun out of the hands of criminals. If the same rules applied to private sales, the sellers would be more likely to deny the sale, as they would be knowingly breaking the law. As stated in the article, it is illegal to "knowingly" sell to a prohibited buyer. As the article also stated the NICS checks HAVE stopped thousands of sales to prohibited buyers. That is a good thing.
I think the law is to stop the illegal sale in the first place, which it does for the most part.

[one-eyed fat man]

19. We certainly disagree.

As it stands now, even if the buyer is on the FBI's 10 most wanted list when he attempts to buy the gun, no one will come after him. They will not call the local law, nothing nada, zilch!

You might be pleased he didn't buy a gun then, but he is absolutely free to go anyplace else he thinks he can beg, borrow or steal one.

You are perfectly happy to let him walk out after committing a felony, but hey so was Janet Reno. She testified the law was merely symbolic, it was NEVER intended to arrest anyone who actually tried to buy a gun.

What is the point? Seems to me to be a waste of time. It strikes me like saying "STOP" signs are symbolic, we never meant for anyone to get arrested for running one.

He is not incriminating himself when he tries to buy a gun knowing he is ineligible, he is committing a crime! And apparently it's no big deal, no one is going to bust him for it.

[safeinOhio]

21. Unless drunk

I've never heard of anyone being arrested for running a red light.
If the buyer had to go the local police or sheriff to get the NICS check and fill out a permit to purchase from a private person, the 10 most wanted person would not only not get the gun, but would be arrested. Good point, make em get the permit to purchase from law enforcement. Thanks, you solved the problem. The state I use to live in required one to visit the local police or sheriff to get a permit to purchase a handgun, even if from a FFL dealer. I did it many times, no problem. 5 other states also require it and no court has found that to be unconstitutional.

[oneshooter]

22. And at the same time the Sheriff can register the gun for you, right? n/t

[safeinOhio]

24. I'd have no problem with that.

I have nothing to hide and fear no government tin foil hat type conspiracy to take away ever legal persons guns. I don't live a world based on fear.

[PavePusher]

31. You also don't seem to live in a world based on history. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. "Those that have nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of"

I don't know which idea is more frightening- That you might have slept through the entire eight years of the Bush Administration...

Or that you didn't....

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Confiscation isn't tinfoil- it's historical fact. As seen here at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=219794

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=194687#194741

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=221495#221517



So, what's it gonna be for you?


The way I see it, you've got several choices:

*Pretend those confiscations (and this post, for that matter) never happened...

*Assure us that this would surely never happen again...

*Tell us that those confiscations were 'reasonable'...

*Surprise us by addressing the issue head-on...


Inquiring minds want to know: Which way will you jump?

[safeinOhio]

40. More than happy to put my money on it.

More than willing to bet you a hundred bucks that you will never have any guns that you legally own and use legally today confiscated while Obama is President. This I'm willing to do even after reading the NRA's "Obama's secret 10 point plan to take away your guns".
I'm also willing to raise the hundred bucks to any number you are willing to bet.

[RSillsbee]

42. While Obama is President

Who said anything about "While Obama is President"? Once the guns are registered they can't be unregistered.

I agree that our guns are (probably) safe while Obama is President but what about while Hillary is President?

[safeinOhio]

43. 200 millions gun in the USA

and in the long history of this country less than a few thousand have ever been confiscated and in most case those policies were overturned in court. So, looking at the history of this country, you are much more likely to be hit by lighting. We need a lighting forum also for the fearful.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. We should trust you, and not history? Oh, suuuure....

For some reason, the term "faith promoting rumor" is coming to mind...

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. "...while Obama is President". I note that is not a denial.

Parsed that very carefully, didn't you? What if Biden or Hilary Clinton hold the office?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Bloomberg-as-President ain't happening. The teabaggers hate him with a passion.

I do agree that our "friends" who keep telling us 'there's nothing to worry about' aren't really our friends at all.

[RSillsbee]

52. There you have it sports fans

The Tea party isn't always wrong. Film at 11

[one-eyed fat man]

25. Most of the states that wanted to see you in person

the cops were doing a pigmentation check. It's still like that in New Jersey and North Carolina, and likely other places as well.

The problem has always been the deceptive way proponents of the background check, going all the way back to the original version of Brady with waiting period, is that there was never any follow up and none was ever intended. NICS is an improvement in that it is less hassle for the innocent, most folks are cleared in seconds.

I can remember when some smug announcement came almost daily about Brady, NICS, etc "stopping" some "increasingly ridiculous huge number" of crooks from buying a gun. Well, sort of, depends on what you mean by stopped. If the crook was brazen or foolhardy enough to try the system using his real name and ID, the absolute worst thing that will happen to him is the sale will be denied. Here you claim that the guy has been "stopped."

Actually, he is perfectly free to ask the guy he buys his dope from if he can get him a gun as well. He is perfectly free to use forged documents and a false identity. He can get his girlfriend to buy it.

The only thing the check has really accomplished is most crooks don't bother going to a legal source, unless they already have the straw buyer or the fake ID ready. That's fine and worthwhile, but quit spreading the delusion that a crook is somehow stopped in any meaningful fashion. Or that the FBI is far less interested in investigating those to whom sales have been denied than in keeping the names of those to whom sales were approved.

[safeinOhio]

26. In the article touted by the poster, a

fine supporter of gun rights, so it must be correct, it is stated.
"Screening works. In 2008, under the terms of the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, federal and state agencies conducted 9,900,711 checks initiated by licensed retailers and denied 147,080 purchases (1.5%). Long-term observational studies in California show that denial, in turn, is associated with a roughly 25% decrease in the risk that the would-be purchaser will later commit a crime involving guns or violence. Unfortunately, the effect of such regulations when they are implemented at the state "


So, it did stop prevent 147,080 purchases by those not allowed by law to purchase preventing many, many possible violent gun crimes. Don't blame me for the article and it's contents. Your side posted it and I agree with it. Now I'm accused by some of MY TRUE colors coming out. Looks like that poster has nothing but personal attacks when he is caught agreeing with the other side. Sad, very sad.

By being interested in those making the approved buys, there is a line of ownership to trace straw sales back to the straw buyer. This, of course, would make the straw buyer less likely to make such a purchase as it can be traced back to that person. You or I, as a legal, law abiding gun purchaser would have little to fear. Do you really think the straw buyer is going to go into the police station and sign up, or the convicted felon. Ok, may be the certified lunatic, but at least if that person is certified, purchase would be denied. I really think you make the case for purchase permits.

[Pavulon]

28. guess that means you passed the "nigra" test

local sheriff has pretty low bar to entry. Some ignorant poon I have to bribe or otherwise convince to exercise a basic right is not going to happen. doesn't matter anyway. This issue is done, gun control is through as an issue and is declining.

The morons who backed it have moved on to things like 4loko, you know with no supreme court cases (2) or constitutional protection, by name.

Its done, cash in your chips. Only choice is how you side handles the loss. You will be witnessing the correction of stupid laws on the books that only impact legal owners.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Since you claim to be a supporter of Second Amendment rights, here's a proposal.

It's perfectly reasonable and just plain common sense:

How's about you start lobbying to open up the NICS to private sellers, since you claim "Screening works".


It would help keep guns out the hands of the ineligible, and the Volstead-type gun controllers will hate the idea as it wouldn't

encumber gun owners enough to suit them...

[Euromutt]

41. How can you be a gun owner yet be so unfamiliar with the Gun Control Act of 1968?

By being interested in those making the approved buys, there is a line of ownership to trace straw sales back to the straw buyer. This, of course, would make the straw buyer less likely to make such a purchase as it can be traced back to that person.

That paper trail already existed prior to the Brady Act, under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA required that newly manufactured and imported firearms be stamped with markings identifying the manufacturer/importer and a unique serial number, and that a private party acquiring a firearm from an FFL fill out an ATF Form 4473.

Indeed, since under the Brady Act, background check records on approved purchases (and the whole point of using a straw purchaser is that the purchase will be approved) were initially to be retained for at most 120 days, the Form 4473 has continued to be the essential part of the paper trail in tracing and identifying the initial purchaser of a recovered crime gun.

I find it curious that someone professing to be a gun owner would not be familiar with the Form 4473; you can't buy a gun from an FFL without having to fill one out. Similarly, in a thread a few days ago, you seemed to be unaware of the fact (in this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=348282&mesg_id=348370) that every firearm legally manufactured in, or imported into, the United States since 1968 already bears a serial number and manufacturer/importer's mark (and quite a lot manufactured even decades prior to 1968 already did so as well, which is how I was able to establish that the Winchester 1894 saddle-ring carbine a friend of mine had inherited from his grandfather had been made in 1918; because it was stamped with "Winchester Repeating Arms Co., New Haven, CT" and a serial number). If you own guns, you really should have noticed that.

If you do, in fact, own guns.

If you don't, and don't know much about firearms laws, it would certainly quite a long way to explaining why you seem to be so fixated on handgun registration as a means of making firearms traceable; because you aren't aware the means to do so--without registration--already exists.

[safeinOhio]

44. I am also aware, as most likely you would be

that once a handgun is sold in a private sale the chain is broken and it can be sold over and over with no trace of ownership. I have purchase a handgun at a garage sale with no evidence of that sale. My point was that a relative or girl friend that was going to purchase for some one not legal to do so, would have second thoughts about going to the police station to get a permit to do so, even if from a FFL dealer. Also, the straw purchaser may simply say they sold the gun purchased from a dealer to Joe Blow in a private sale with no way to prove other wise. What are the means to do it that already exists in those cases?

[slackmaster]

45. Tracing ownership in a string of private sales can and does happen

It requires old-fashioned expenditure of shoe leather. Basic police work.

I have purchase a handgun at a garage sale with no evidence of that sale.

No you haven't. There were at least two witnesses to the sale.

[RSillsbee]

49. So now you've gone from

promoting unilateral registration to promoting licensure )IE permission to exercise my rights) from the local police?

one of those things that makes you go hmmmm?

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. The 'faux naive' schtick works for Sarah Palin. It's not working for you.

You've rather too many conveniently 'overlooked' facts and carefully parsed replies to pass the smell test.

[RSillsbee]

53. It really doesn't work for her either

But we get your point

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. Ah, but it does work for her- with people that *already* like her.

Everyone else realizes that she's an not-unattractive dimbulb with delusions of grandeur. The true believers, of course, treat her

as some sort of moose-hunting Margaret Thatcher.



Similarly, the RACSGC ('Reasonable' And 'Common-Sense' Gun Control) types that post here sound plausable -

to those who already support gun control.


To those of us who are better informed and know our history, they might as well write the blog posts at "Gun Guys", or hang around

Harvard Square offering free personality tests...

[Euromutt]

54. None of which bears immediate relevance on the claims you've made earlier

You've claimed that, if only firearms came with serial numbers, "the gun would not be sold in the open market, thus making it worth little and a sure ticket to jail." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=348282&mesg_id=348370)
You've claimed that if there were "a line of ownership to trace straw sales back to the straw buyer<, this> would make the straw buyer less likely to make such a purchase as it can be traced back to that person." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=348633&mesg_id=348697)

Both have been standard for 42 years, in spite of which, firearms are still stolen and fenced, and firearms are still straw purchased from FFLs. So we've established your ability to accurately predict criminal behavior--even criminal behavior that has already occurred--is just about non-existent. So why should we put any stock in your predictions concerning the crime-reducing effect of other measures you support?

[jazzhound]

20. "I suggest you read more of it from the article.."

What made you assume I didn't read the article? The fact of the matter is that I read the entire article.

Showing your true (presumptuous/irrational) colors once again, I'm afraid.

[LiberalArkie]

8. How about you go down take a test get a gun license and then show it to buy a gun.

Much like a hunting license, drivers license fishing license etc...

[RSillsbee]

10. How about

No

[spin]

11. As a seller, how would I know if the license hadn't been revoked ...

the day before?

[PavePusher]

12. May I see your book-buying licence and test score, please? Thanks! n/t

[cleanhippie]

14. How about you go down and take a test to post your opinion on a message board

or anywhere else you would like to exercise your Constitutional RIGHTS? Thats why not. No one need to take a test to exercise their right.

[Euromutt]

15. In principle, I wouldn't have a problem with that

In practice, however, licensing requirements have been abused in the past to impose de facto gun prohibitions by arbitrarily denying licenses (to ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, those without political connections, et al.) or by making it difficult to impossible to meet the criteria (e.g. by not actually holding the class you need to take, or holding it only on the fifth Tuesday of the month during office hours), which is why pro-RKBA types tend to be extremely leery of that sort of thing.

[safeinOhio]

16. Take the current "shall issue" laws

sure seem fair to me. They have clear cut rules in most states and have not been abused in any great number. You think they are bad and have been leery of them? In practice most "shall issue" laws have not been abused or used to impose de facto gun prohibitions, denying carry licenses to minorities or those without political connections. As a matter of fact, those laws have put an end to those practices in the states where passed. Why not well written "shall background checks" laws? My county sucks on getting CCWs. Open for CCW business times at the local sheriffs office sucks and they nit pick everyones papers. But, the law was well written so you can go to any county that boarders on your county. The county next to mine is great and they end up with all of the business and that sheriff is very popular with the voters. The key to any law is how well it is written and how well it works.

[PavePusher]

17. Why should I have to pay a fee and get government permission....

to exercise a Civil Right?

May I see your First, Fourth and Thirteenth Amendment licences and proof of fees paid, please?

[safeinOhio]

18. You already do if you have a CCW

So don't get one. No charge. You already do, it's called a sale tax, it's called a property transfer tax. You already do, it is called the price and taxes paid to own a newspaper, TV or radio station and there are licensing fees on those. You already do when you pay for a permit for your demonstration on the Capital Mall. The 4th does not apply. You already do, you have to pay for your gun, unless giving to you. You even have to get the governments permission to vote and be registered. Why should you have to? Because this isn't Somalia, even if you wish it was. Life is a bitch and then you die.

Then there is Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises,.....

[Pavulon]

27. Great way to many stupid fuckers vote and post on the internet

lets make a tax for both. Better yet lets make it so you need a piece of paper some asshole has to stamp to do both of those. Got bribe money?

I shit you not if employment ever forced me to move to some restrictive shithole I would be sure the contract put enough cash on the table to bribe whomever to get a carry permit.

By bribe I mean pay a lawyer to figure it out, a rich persons bribe..

[safeinOhio]

29. Where are all the stories about

bribes in "shall issue" states? I don't see anyone calling for expanding "may issue".

When you only see in black and white, you miss a lot.

[Pavulon]

30. Right next to the stories about bribes for building codes and DOT contracts

bottom line in socal or nyc area I can get a permit with a stack of cash through a lawyer. What he does is not my concern.

No stack of cash, no permit. I see plenty of gray. anyone not addressing root cause of gun violence is either unable to see it or unwilling to state it and acknowledge the problem is more complex than some new reg I have to follow.

thats the gray space. the rest is simple, its a right, it is a done argument. now we are like post brown vs board and roe, only thing left is determining how the parties will handle their new guidance.

[safeinOhio]

32. Good examples as

both NY and Cal are "may issue" states. Bad laws equal bad outcomes. Now show me all the stories, must be a bunch of them, for states with "shall issue" laws that have a problem with bribes for CCWs.

[Pavulon]

33. Must issue is fine..

to blacks, jews, people who did not donate you your re-election fund. I have no problem with the CCW process in my state. Nice and reasonable.

Next domino to push is the laws that make driving up the east coast a legal mess with a handgun.

That may force some places to confront the facts. Camden NJ is a shithole, that fact has nothing to do with my firearms.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. It's up to you to prove your own argument- Provide your own stories

You claim it's a problem? Demonstrate it.

[safeinOhio]

39. Thanks for providing the

the link and touting it for me. What, you think no one is going to read the whole thing?

[Euromutt]

34. There's an obvious difference you're conveniently overlooking

Namely that "shall issue" CCW laws were a relaxation of the gun laws, compared to the previous situation, in which a concealed carry permit was either "may issue" or non-existent. By contrast, requiring a license to simply possess a firearm would represent a tightening of gun laws in most jurisdictions in the U.S. (and the status quo in the rest).

Let's take a look at a recent historical example of a jurisdiction being forced to "shall issue" licenses to possess (forget concealed carry, this is just to have in your home) a handgun, namely the District of Columbia. As WaPo reported Chris Davenport put it:

It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam

to get the permit.
In my neck of the woods, you can get a brand new SIG-Sauer for less than it costs to get the fucking license in D.C. to own the thing in the first place. And for fuck's sake, four visits to the cop shop, presumably at times at which most people are required to be at work? Anyone want to tell me that "shall issue" system isn't deliberately designed to deter most people from even trying to get a license?

[oneshooter]

23. Would this be at the same place

you go get your license to vote, gather in groups of more than three, check out a book at the library?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

56. Good public policy measures need real problems to solve...

That's the problem I have with gun-control measures. Even opening the NICS test to everyone, as a measure, does not clearly identify a problem, nor how the measure purports to address the problem, let alone how an outcome will be measured. With illegal gun purchases at "gun shows" at such low levels (and a concentration of LEO at these shows a common-place event), what kind of problem is addressed? To me, a measure like this seems to have a political subtext that dwarfs any so-called social problem.