Gunshow Loophole

[whiskeydog]

I've yet to see any data that backs up that claim. The US has the highest rate of gun crime in the industrialized world.

I didn't say that we didn't have a high rate of gun crime...only that Europe, despite extremely restrictive gun laws, has many of the worst shootings. here's your data...

Additionally, guns aside, the rate of violent crime per 100,000 people is lower in the US than UK, Austria, South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Luxemburg, and France (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html)



March 13, 1996 - Britain - Gunman Thomas Hamilton burst into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot dead 16 children and their teacher before killing himself.

April 26, 2002 - Germany - In Erfurt, eastern Germany, 19-year-old Robert Steinhauser opened fire after saying he was not going to take a math test. He killed 12 teachers, a secretary, two pupils and a policeman at the Gutenberg Gymnasium, before killing himself.

Nov 7, 2007 - Finland - Pekka-Eric Auvinen killed six fellow students, the school nurse, the principal and himself with a handgun at the Jokela High School near Helsinki.

Sept 23, 2008 - Finland - Student Matti Saari opened fire in a vocational school in Kauhajoki in northwest Finland, killing nine other students and one male staff member before killing himself.

March 11, 2009 - Germany - A 17-year-old gunman dressed in combat gear killed nine students and three teachers at a school near Stuttgart. He also killed one other person at a nearby clinic. He was later killed in a shoot-out with police. Two additional passers-by were killed and two policemen seriously injured, bringing the death toll to 16 including the gunman.

June 2, 2010 - Britain - Gunman Derrick Bird opened fire on people in towns across the rural county of Cumbria. Twelve people were killed and 11 injured. Bird also killed himself.

April 9, 2011 - Netherlands - Tristan van der Vlis opened fire in the Ridderhof mall in Alphen aan den Rijn, south of Amsterdam, killing six before turning the gun on himself.

July 22, 2011 - Norway - Police seize a gunman who killed 69 people at a youth summer camp of Norway's ruling political party, on the small, holiday island of Utoeya. Anders Behring Breivik is later charged with the killings, as well as with an earlier bombing in Oslo which killed eight people. The trial ended last month with Breivik saying that his bombing and shooting rampage was necessary to defend the country - prompting a walk-out by relatives of his victims.

Dec 13, 2011 - Belgium - Gunman Nordine Armani killed three people, including a 17-month-old toddler, wounding 121 in a central square in the eastern city of Liege, before shooting himself. The next day Belgian investigators found the body of a woman in warehouse used by the gunman raising the death toll, including the killer, to five.

 

[Oak]

The better question is how has the loophole slowed or stopped strawman purchases.

If we accept the logic that laws do not stop people from doing bad things, then let's get rid of laws against pedophiles. I mean, c'mon. It's not stopping kid rape.

My brother, who is not "allowed" to own a gun and definitely shouldn't, has never had a problem finding some dimwit to go straw purchase a gun from a store before. And I'm fairly certain he has never set foot inside a gun show.

This falls under the category of, "if it makes you feel better...." There will be no meaningful results, though.

 

[WyOpitz]

If we accept the logic that laws do not stop people from doing bad things, then let's get rid of laws against pedophiles. I mean, c'mon. It's not stopping kid rape.

I think Ben Lamb has a mental illness and should not own a firearm. ha! But let's compare apples to apples right?

 

[whiskeydog]

If we accept the logic that laws do not stop people from doing bad things, then let's get rid of laws against pedophiles. I mean, c'mon. It's not stopping kid rape.

That's faulty logic, a gun owner can stop a gun crime...being a pedophile isn't going to stop pedophiles.

 

[ringer]

You missed my point. Booker was calling for the elimination of the secondary market completely. Nothing to do with gun shows at all. He wants to eliminate the ability of individuals to buy and sell firearms without a background check. The gunshow loophole is just the start of this one. You ever buy a gun from a person on one of our hunting and fishing websites? I have bought and sold many over the years.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's faulty logic, a gun owner can stop a gun crime...being a pedophile isn't going to stop pedophiles.

There fault in the logic is thinking that closing the loophole won't do anything. It's precisely the same argument that NAMBLA would make regarding laws against pedophelia.

If laws are ineffective, why have any at all? Why not let anarchy reign?

 

[Ben Lamb]

You missed my point. Booker was calling for the elimination of the secondary market completely. Nothing to do with gun shows at all. He wants to eliminate the ability of individuals to buy and sell firearms without a background check. The gunshow loophole is just the start of this one. You ever buy a gun from a person on one of our hunting and fishing websites? I have bought and sold many over the years.

I've purchased online before, and they always went through an FFL because they were shipped. I've sold face to face and if I wasn't comfortable with the person, I wouldn't sell. If I offered to go through an FFL and they balked, I wouldn't sell. If they seemed the not be right, I wouldn't sell.

I'm all for face to face personal sales. I'm all for gunshows. I also realize that if the firearms community doesn't make some changes to the way we go about our lives, we're gonna get the Australian model shoved up our bums. If closing the gunshow loophole helps us maintain our right to keep and bear arms, and it doesn't infringe upon our rights, what's the problem?

The tide is not on our side.

 

[whiskeydog]

There fault in the logic is thinking that closing the loophole won't do anything. It's precisely the same argument that NAMBLA would make regarding laws against pedophelia.

If laws are ineffective, why have any at all? Why not let anarchy reign?

don't be so drastic. i am all for laws that are EFFECTIVE. strengthening gun laws gives speed to those who would see them banned. if i thought for one second that closing the loophole would prevent crime, i would support it. it will do nothing. show me one piece of evidence from a state that has closed the loophole that it somehow lead to a decrease in crime?

 

[BuzzH]

I say close the gunshow loophole.

I think streamlining the background check for gunshows makes sense.

IMO, gunshows are an absolute joke anyway. I quit going to them years ago, mainly because your chances of finding a good deal at one were about the same as finding a full set of teeth between those peddling their wares...

I never was quite sure if I was at a gun show, a freak show, or if the circus was in town...good grief.

 

[bigeasygator]

That's faulty logic, a gun owner can stop a gun crime...being a pedophile isn't going to stop pedophiles.

In my opinion, that's the kind of logic that's going to end up costing legal, responsible firearm owners in the longrun. And the previous analogy is completely rational...I'm hearing say we should not institute laws or have them on our books because they will be broken. And I haven't heard one person here advocate against not being able to own guns...this thread is about closing loopholes and fixing a flawed system.

Not being able to compromise on these issues, which I have yet to hear a sound argument against why closing loopholes and enhancing background checks is bad (ie, limiting gun ownership to responsible, law abiding citizens), is going to cost us all a chance to own firearms in the future.

Ben Lamb hit the nail on the head, the tide is not on our side right now.

 

[Ben Lamb]

don't be so drastic. i am all for laws that are EFFECTIVE. strengthening gun laws gives speed to those who would see them banned. if i thought for one second that closing the loophole would prevent crime, i would support it. it will do nothing. show me one piece of evidence from a state that has closed the loophole that it somehow lead to a decrease in crime?

NCIS checks have stopped 1.8 million people from illegally purchasing firearms. The law also acts as a deterrence, keeping some who would normally go to a gunshow with the understanding that there's no check to purchase from actually going to a gunshow and purchasing a firearm. While it certainly won't stop everyone from illegally purchasing a firearm, it would stop some. And it would do so with no infringement upon your right to own a firearm.

Show me one piece of evidence that says leaving the loophole open reduces crime.

 

[WyOpitz]

There are already many laws in place...and when do we cross the threshold of "too far". The problem is that once we go down that road...we will never go back. If I thought for a minute that banning guns would save children lives than I would turn them in...but mass shooting will likely turn into mass stabbings, swordings, bombings, clubbings, etc. It is all on the INDIVIDUAL!

 

[bigeasygator]

don't be so drastic. i am all for laws that are EFFECTIVE. strengthening gun laws gives speed to those who would see them banned. if i thought for one second that closing the loophole would prevent crime, i would support it. it will do nothing. show me one piece of evidence from a state that has closed the loophole that it somehow lead to a decrease in crime?

Why not support it? And I will not accept the answer that there is no evidence it will not reduce crime. If it stops one person from legally obtaining a firearm that they were going to use to commit a crime, it has decreased crime -- and no evidence can measure something that statistically insignificant when compared against the volume of crime committed in this country. So give me one more reason why this loophole should be in place?

 

[Dinkshooter]

I say close the gunshow loophole.

I think streamlining the background check for gunshows makes sense.

IMO, gunshows are an absolute joke anyway. I quit going to them years ago, mainly because your chances of finding a good deal at one were about the same as finding a full set of teeth between those peddling their wares...

I never was quite sure if I was at a gun show, a freak show, or if the circus was in town...good grief.

HA! Post of the thread!

There's the problem, no vendor at a gun show has the IQ to run the equipment for a background check!

 

[Ben Lamb]

There are already many laws in place...and when do we cross the threshold of "too far". The problem is that once we go down that road...we will never go back. If I thought for a minute that banning guns would save children lives than I would turn them in...but mass shooting will likely turn into mass stabbings, swordings, bombings, clubbings, etc. It is all on the INDIVIDUAL!

27 people died last week. 20 of them were children in kindergarten and first grade. If you think for a minute that won't severely influence laws and policy we're all living in a fantasy land.

But nobody is talking about banning guns. We're talking about how to reduce the number of firearms going to those who honestly should not have them. Closing the loophole won't have a dramatic effect, but closing it, along with (a fantastic suggestion) of maintaining better records of those who are mentally ill, etc, will have a cumulative effect.

 

[whiskeydog]

NCIS checks have stopped 1.8 million people from illegally purchasing firearms. The law also acts as a deterrence, keeping some who would normally go to a gunshow with the understanding that there's no check to purchase from actually going to a gunshow and purchasing a firearm. While it certainly won't stop everyone from illegally purchasing a firearm, it would stop some. And it would do so with no infringement upon your right to own a firearm.

Show me one piece of evidence that says leaving the loophole open reduces crime.

no...the checks just forced the prospective buyer to buy elsewhere or steal the gun...it didn't prevent anything.
as for showing evidence that the loophole reduces crime? i don't care if there is evidence...unless you can show evidence that the loophole, without a doubt, reduces crime then i would prefer to not give a single step towards any further levels of gun control.

i'm sure we both value our rights to own guns, are law abiding, and would support any legislation that would measurably reduce violent crime. we just disagree on how to get there. and that is ok.

 

[Ben Lamb]

no...the checks just forced the prospective buyer to buy elsewhere or steal the gun...it didn't prevent anything.
as for showing evidence that the loophole reduces crime? i don't care if there is evidence...unless you can show evidence that the loophole, without a doubt, reduces crime then i would prefer to not give a single step towards any further levels of gun control.

i'm sure we both value our rights to own guns, are law abiding, and would support any legislation that would measurably reduce violent crime. we just disagree on how to get there. and that is ok.

I think that's highly subjective to think that they'd go find it elsewhere. But if we go down that road: It also provides law enforcement another tool in establishing motive and intent if they did. So you have the added benefit that you can prove motive, intent, and get a better conviction on those who do break the law.

No doubt about the last part of your post WD. A good discussion with differing viewpoints is always a good thing.

 

[Oak]

NCIS checks have stopped 1.8 million people from illegally purchasing firearms. The law also acts as a deterrence, keeping some who would normally go to a gunshow with the understanding that there's no check to purchase from actually going to a gunshow and purchasing a firearm. While it certainly won't stop everyone from illegally purchasing a firearm, it would stop some. And it would do so with no infringement upon your right to own a firearm.

Show me one piece of evidence that says leaving the loophole open reduces crime.

Ben, I am fine if you want to tackle that. I have no problem closing that "loophole". Like I said, the law is already in place in my state, and like Buzz, I can't remember the last time I went to a gun show. And, I don't mind having to complete a background check for a gun purchase. If it makes you feel better......

 

[WV Hunter]

I say close the gunshow loophole.

I think streamlining the background check for gunshows makes sense.

IMO, gunshows are an absolute joke anyway. I quit going to them years ago, mainly because your chances of finding a good deal at one were about the same as finding a full set of teeth between those peddling their wares...

I never was quite sure if I was at a gun show, a freak show, or if the circus was in town...good grief.

Cool, since you never found a deal at a gun show we should close the loophole

 

[bigeasygator]

no...the checks just forced the prospective buyer to buy elsewhere or steal the gun...it didn't prevent anything.

There are two problems I have with this statement.

A) there's no proof that all of these buyers went and purchased a gun somewhere else or stole one, and my guess is that there is a significant percentage who's gun acquisition mission ended right there.

B) it absolutely DID prevent something. It prevented the LEGAL purchase of a firearm.