A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

quote:

---

There is no gunshow loophole. If you buy a gun at a gun show the dealer still has to go through the same background check as at the storefront and fill out the exact same documantation and paperwork. That is already the law.

---

According to a 1999 study by the ATF, 25 to 50 percent of the vendors at gun shows are unlicensed.So, they are private sellers who do not have to keep any records at all, not perform background checks.There is most certainly a loophole in gunshows, because there is no requirement that sellers be licenced dealers.

quote:

---

Private sales are different. There is currently no law covering private, person to person sales, and in fact, no way I can imagine to regulate private person to person sales.

---

We do it with cars and houses, why not guns?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-25-2004 09:11 AM

quote:

---

Therefore, the government has no right to restrict ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

---

The government has a right, and I would say an obligation, to reasonably restrict the availability, and regulate the sale, safety, use, and storage requirements of these dangerous, lethal devices.Currently, the manufacture of guns in the US are not regulated at all for quality, nor safety.There is currently no legal requirement for any gun owner in the US to store their firearms nor their ammunition securely.There currently no legal requirement for anyone in the US to learn how to safely or correctly operate a firearm.There is currently no legal requirement in the US for a private seller of a gun to keep any record whatsoever of who bought their gun, nor are they required to do any criminal background checks. It is estimated that around a quarter of all gun sellers at gun shows are private sellers.There is currently no restriction on a person buying a gun even if they have a restraining order against them.

quote:

---

We do background checks on the buyers of cars and houses? Really?

---

If you have a terrible credit score and are in bankruptcy, you will not get a loan.

Jar, do you now acept that there IS a gunshow loophole that needs to be closed?

quote:

---

According to a 1999 study by the ATF, 25 to 50 percent of the vendors at gun shows are unlicensed.

​

So, they are private sellers who do not have to keep any records at all, not perform background checks.

​

There is most certainly a loophole in gunshows, because there is no requirement that sellers be licenced dealers.

---

You said that all purchases at gunshows were fro licenced dealers.Thats not true.Around a quarter of the sellers at gunshows are not dealers, so there are no requirements for records nor criminal background checks.Why isn't this a loophole?Please explain.

quote:

---

First, the private party sales are a small number of transactions, folk selling one or two guns from their collection. They are not dealers.

---

Any real data to back that up?

quote:

---

But private party sales are the same whether in a home or across the states or at a show. They are private party sales.

---

Privat party sales should not be allowed at gun shows.Private sellers should be required to keep records of who they sell their guns to, and they should be required to do a criminal background check on the purchaser.There are many inexpensive services available on line to do these checks, and the cost could be passed on to the buyer.Surely you would want to require these reasonable measures to make sure scam arists and criminals do not buy a gun from you and then use it for criminal activity, don't you?You are interested in legality and safety, sren't you?

quote:

---

Many of the sellers at gun shows, by the way, aren't selling guns. Their selling clothes, knives, food, travel, books, movies, loading equipment, services like gunsmithing, MREs, bows. guide service, boats, fishing gear and almost anything else you can imagine.

---

I'm sure that's true, but it is irrelevant.

quote:

---

As to backing up the claim, it is against the law to deal in guns without a license. If it's a business, then you need a license.

---

I agree.But there is no requirement that someone selling guns at a gunshow be a licensed dealer, jar.That is the loophole.

quote:

---

In general, I've attended many, many gun shows over the decades and so have a very good feel for what's there. How many guns shows have you been to?

---

I haven't been to any gunshows, and that is irrelevant to the reality of the data.(however, there are a LOT of gunshows here close to Detroit, and I think I'd like to attend a couple (if they are free) and see what percentage of the tables selling guns are licenced dealers)You have been to many gunshows, and that is also (largely) irrelevant to the reality of the data.What real, objective, not anecdotal, evidence do you have to back up your factual claim?

quote:

---

Is that right? What are those services?

---

I googled criminal background check online service and it returned 472,000 hits.You can find out instantly, for instance, for anywhere between $20-$50, if there are any warrants out on a person, and all you need is a name and the state where they live.Do you even oppose something as easy as requiring a private seller to get the name of who they are selling to?If the buyer is a criminal, at least there will be a little paper trail for the police to trace the firearm back to the seller.It seems very strange that you would resist requiring these basic safeguards, while at the same time preaching how concerned you are with safety and keeping guns out of criminals' hands.

quote:

---

And the point about who sells at the shows certainly is relevant. You are quoting figures that seem to be based on the number of licensed dealers versus the number of tables at a show.

---

I believe they are based on the sellers of GUNS, not number of tables.

quote:

---

That implies that the unlicensed tables are selling guns. But in most cases those tables are selling non firearms.

---

Got any data to back up that assertion?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-02-2004 10:41 PM

Jar, I really do not feel like you are discussing things openly and honestly.You are giving me lots of coy answers and are also thinking completely uncritically about guns and gunshows.I really don't think you are willing to understand my position and are so fearful that someone will take your (happiness is a warm) gun away from you that you have become prettyy irrational on the subject.What would you say to a creationist who denies some evolution who also says that they KNOW they are right because they have read about it at AiG and all the churches and revivals they have been to said the same thing?You are not looking for disconfirming evidence of your cherished and closely-held position.I have, however, gone to the NRA website many times to look for disconfirming evidence, and I have asked you and Verzem to back up your factual claims.I WILL change my views if you provide me with some hard facts, but you continue to feed me personal anecdotes as if they mean anything when you know better.I have got to tell you that I am pretty disappointed.

quote:

---

Trying to restrict the freedoms of one person because of the irresponsibility of another person is not the way to go.

---

Let's look at manufacturers of baby clothing.Out of 1,000 hypothetical companies that produce baby clothing, nearly all of them are responsible companies, making sure that their products are safe; fire retardant, don't have parts that can come off and be choked on, etc.There are a couple of companies that unfortunately think that all of these safety measures are too expensive to research and implement, so they make their baby clothes out of flammable cloth and have buttons that come off easily, etc.There are many infants who die as a result of wearing the unsafe, clothing, and in response, the Federal government, because of public outcry, and also because it is the RATIONAL and RIGHT THING TO DO, passes laws that regulate what kind of cloth, decoration/fasteners, etc. can be used to make baby clothes.We do, in this case, restrict the freedoms of all baby clothes manufacturers because of the irresponsibility of the few bad manufacturers, but not really.The responsible manufacturers were not tempted to put the lives of babies in danger and so did whatever it took to make a safe product anyway, so they will just go on as before.It is quite justifiable, in this case, to restrict accordig to the "lowest common denominator" because the consequences are so deadly and so extreme that strict regulations are needed to prevent death and grave injury.

Do you admit that it is true that not every single seller of guns at gun shows is a licensed dealer?

quote:

---

Essentially to end the possibility of private sales of guns (which seems to be your concern)

---

No, no, I don't think that this is realistic or even desireable.I think that most people who buy and sell guns are probably law-abiding.I just think there needs to be much more oversight and recordkeeping anf background checks required when selling something as dangerous as a firearm.It's not like trading baseball cards, for goodness sake.

quote:

---

One way one could use the stats you have shown more usefully is not to indict the events, or advocate greater licensing requirements, but to have law enforcement more vigilant at such events for infringements (private sales).

---

That would be a good start.Since internet criminal background checks are so inexpensive and easy to run, why not require those, too? And why not require prvate sellers to keep a copy of the bill of sale with all the pertinant info on it?

quote:

---

They will never be stopped, but they can be limited.

---

They need to be, because private sales at gun shows are, according to the FBI, a significant source of guns used in crime.Jar doesn't agree with the FBI, even though he has no evidence to support his assertion.

quote:

---

I'm not asking this facetiously so please don't take it as such. Exactly which manufacturers are being irresponsible in the way in which they manufacture guns and which ones are not? In your example, some manufacturers are responsible and some are not so I was just wondering if you only had a problem with certain manufacturers or certain types or firearms.

---

Actually, I was comparing baby clothes manufacurers to gun owners.Most of them are responsible, but some of them are not.Since we cannot rely upon every single gun owner to be 100% responsible at all times, AND because guns are very dangerous, we have to tailor the laws to make illegal the actions of the least reponsible gun owners.That's why we need to have gun storage laws, very thorough criminal background checks, waiting periods, regulated private sales, etc.We ALSO need to better enforce the laws we alteady have.

I do actually have a problem with the fact that there are absolutely no quality or safety regulations regarding the manufacture of guns in the US.As such, there are several companies which produce very popular low quality handguns that are used frequently in criminal activity.Theses guns generally fail the "drop test" in which they often will discharge when dropped.Here's an example:Page not found | Violence Policy Center

If that gun seller is doing so responsibly, they should need to keep records.The records would show when they have sold a gun.

quote:

---

Responsible gun sellers already try to make sure they are following all the laws.

---

What laws do private sellers have to follow?Do they have to take reasonable measures to find out if the person they are selling their gun is a criminal, has any warrents out for their arrest, has any restraining orders against them, etc.?Besides, I don't want people to just "try" to follow the law.I want them to be held accountable if they choose to not follow the law.