2008.12.09
That pesky gun-show loophole again
Last time I posted about guns ("A run on guns!?"), folks spat out every preconceived---though ill-informed---notion imaginable about the poster.
One gentleman posted a long gun soliloquy, gently urging me "to try to sincerely comprehend" it. Another gun owner derisively made mention of my Michigan roots and implored me to "Go back North, Yankee." (He apparently has no clue that the Great Lakes state is rife with gun lovers. Hunting is HUGE in Michigan, with people scheduling vacation time from those once plentiful, well-paying auto plant jobs to go hunting. And believe it or not, the poster herself has even squeezed off a round.)
"A run on guns!?" didn't say I supported guns. It didn't say I opposed them, either. Folks just assumed the latter.
Truth is, I don't care if folks own guns. My father was a gun owner. I also believe most gun owners are law-abiding citizens (and a lot smarter than Plaxico Burress). The point of the previous post was to point out the absurdity of folks who, two days after the election of Barack Obama, ran out to load up on weapons. It seemed more than a tad extreme to me.
But guns are back in the news. Virginia lawmakers heard testimony today about the gun-show loophole. Let me be clear this time: Close the loophole.
What sense does it make for licensed dealers at gun shows to conduct background checks but not for private sales at the same event? Close it.
s
I recall another country that was disarmed one time.We all know what that led to. This is just another step closer to that. A crook will get hold of a gun if he wants one.If I own a gun as a law abbiding person and my friend next door wants to get hold of a gun to do a crime but cant get a gun legally he would not stop for a second from taking mine.We just cant make laws to make people do the right thing.That deed must be done in our homes,schools,churches and in all walks of life. We are suppuse to be a god fearing country but sometimes I stop and wonder.
Comment by charlie — December 9, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
You do not need to go back to Michigan, but you do need to be more specific. How, exactly do we close the loophole? I have read everything I can find in the paper and on this site and I still do not know what the proposal is.
Comment by Allen Bunch — December 11, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Without expressing an opinion on whether background checks should be conducted at all, I don't understand a system that requires them at Walmart but not at the gun shows. The law needs to be consistent or it can't be effective.
Comment by Mike — December 11, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Close the Loop Hole would be good, but criminals never buy guns. they rob and burglarize gun stores. They kill suspected conceal weapon carriers. They even kill or attempt to kill police officers for their weapons.
Criminals never needed loop holes, when they can kill or rob.
For those that consider taking firearms from law-abiding citizens, consider the locks on your doors. who do they keep out the criminal, the honest man or opportunity?
A man with one watch always knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never quite sure.
Comment by Static Lines — December 11, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
"We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths." - The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from California and Texas, NBER October 2008
If there is no empirical evidence to support increasing the time and costs of transacting firearms, then this is a bad policy. Of course, England banned guns with empirical evidence pointing to lower crime rates in towns with higher gun ownership, but we're different right? Or are we?
Private sales without a background check among individuals are legal under the The Gun Control Act of 1968. Any dealers, that is, those who make their living from selling firearms have to conduct a background check, even at gunshows. So, what is the "loophole" you are referring to?
We all know that this type of policy is supported mainly by anti-gunners. The anti's want to remove all firearms from the public the same way it was done in England, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia. In Canada, the public was assured that it would not have it's guns confiscated (2004), yet the very next year (2005) legislation was passed to do just that! ALL confiscation followed gun registration programs.
Obama is the proverbial fox in the hen house regarding anti-gun legislation. Some of the largest contributors to his campaign were law firms standing to profit from anti-gun legislation that they authored. Let's keep government from controlling our lives beginning with opposing any more controls at gunshows.
Comment by Jim — December 11, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Everyday In the United States Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily that translates to 4380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens.
That's 21900 since Sept. 11, 2001
The FBI estimates that there are currently 500 serial killers at large. Other estimates are much lower.
Around 35 - 100 serial killers currently committing crimes daily and of those murdered, only 1% is killed by the gun.
Serial killers weapon of choice is the knife, garrote, or their hands. By the time a serial killer is caught they would have killed 10-30 times.
Estimates shows by the time a murderer is caught they would have committed multiple murders one of which the gun would be used. The weapon used by murderers 70% of the time is the knife or the club.
Statically this and that, if a burglar attempts to break in your home statically you are going to wish for a gun and the survival instincts to use it.
The average handgun holds 5 or more rounds and if it's two intruders, and your weapon holds 14 rounds.
By all means spread the wealth.
Comment by Static Lines — December 12, 2008 @ 7:32 am
Shanna,
I wasn't going to comment earlier because you already knew my feelings on the subject, and I figured any comments would be lost in the fury of responses that generally follow these articles.
But I had not seen the article that you linked to. After reading it, I did want to post a couple of comments (objections?).
1. I think part of the article was a bit misleading. "close a loophole in the state's gun laws that allows unlicensed sellers at gun shows to skip background checks on buyers."
There is no loophole. The law simply does not regulate private business between two people. The way this is written implies that the law somehow exempts people at gun shows from something they normally must do. That is not the case. In addition, "unlicensed seller" is misleading, also. It's on the verge of intentionally misleading..if you'll allow me to say, it's almost intentionally vilifying to support a particular view. It would be akin to me calling you an unlicensed day care operator...calling my neighbor an unlicensed bar.... Our church had many bake sales in the day, and I don't remember the health inspector crashing those unlicensed restaurants.
(I'm probably wrong about you being the unlicensed day care...you may never have accepted money for looking after your niece or other family members.)
2. "By the same stretch of logic, the world would be safer if more countries possessed nuclear weapons. Does anyone believe that?"
I disagree this is the same stretch of logic. They're controlled by political entities...they're large-area effect devices. They can leave a lot of crap around for a long time.
But if one wanted to follow that logic...if China were to nuke Taiwan, I don't think that should spurn us to abandon our defensive nukes and encourage our allies to do the same.
"I also believe most gun owners are law-abiding citizens (and a lot smarter than Plaxico Burress)."
I do appreciate that, for it is very true. It's really awful hard to shoot yourself with a gun if you have any lick of sense. Oh well.
Well, actually, I did take money once for keeping my young cousin back in the '70s.---s
Comment by Ed S. — December 13, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Ed S.
Your comments explored areas that never have been exposed. Far as Plaxico Burress, from my understanding of the weapon in question he had to have had his finger on the trigger for it to discharge because of it's safety mechanism.
So in short who was he drawing the weapon on in the club before he shot himself, and for what pathetic reason?
Shanna
far as accepting money for keeping your cousin in the past, you were only taking advantage of the free market society.
I just wouldn't say that too loud--you make get charged for back taxes. remember last week Obama said 42% of Americans isn't paying their fair share.
Since 55% of Americans pay taxes, and 42% don't because they are too poor it seems the poor have to pay now. As he expect gun owners have to give up something as well.
Comment by Static Lines — December 14, 2008 @ 12:17 am
The Plaxico incident reminds me of ole barney fife, but at least he had good enough aim never to shoot himself in the thigh or foot. Has anyone suggested to Plax that he carry the bullet in his shirt pocket?
Comment by Mike — December 16, 2008 @ 1:27 am
Static Lines-
"from my understanding of the weapon in question he had to have had his finger on the trigger for it to discharge because of it's safety mechanism."
Correction: *Something* had to "pull" the trigger for the gun to fire. It could have been a finger, clothing, or even compression of a fat-roll against clothing.
I haven't read what type of pistol it was. Perhaps it was a Glock, or similar pistol with a safety embedded in the trigger. If so, the fat-roll scenario is less plausible, but regardless the point is that a finger is not the only object that can be inserted 'twixt the trigger guard and trigger and allow designed operation. A tube of lip balm would work just as well.
Which is why you *always* use a proper holster...even if in your pocket (pocket holster).
Comment by Ed S. — December 16, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Ed S.
The weapon in question is the Glock 23, Gun Weight: 21.16 oz empty so if he was wearing loose fitting clothing the weapon would have constantly tugged downward so he hand to have had the firearm in some sort of holster possibly the Velcro TACTICAL THIGH RIG attached to his thigh inside his pants.
Any Glock owner knows that a Glock will not go off by being dropped. The Glock trigger "lock" prevents that. It's not a trigger lock in the traditional sense. Glocks do not have trigger locks.
But the Glock will not fire unless substantial pressure is exerted on the trigger due to a nearly 6 lb trigger pull. You can drop a Glock on the floor, throw it on the floor, drop it in your pants all day long and the weapon will not fire.
There is a video on youtube of the Glock being dropped from Helicopter to the earth it did not fire.
NY Post said he felt it falling, and it discharged as he grabbed for it. i.e. the tactical rig.. Yet this rig has two snaps to secure the weapon very similar to S.W.A.T. Teams.
Plaxico is lying plan and simple.
So my question remains whom was he drawing the weapon on, and for what stupid reason?
Comment by Static Lines — December 16, 2008 @ 8:36 pm