The Florida *Gun show loophole*

Page 1 of 5  
I've just read about this crazy gun loophole:
The loophole Florida has no law requiring background checks of any kind if a private individual - as opposed to a licensed gun shop - sells to another private individual. This is often referred to as a "gun show loophole".
"If you go to a gun range and the guy next to you says, 'Oh, I love your gun,' you can sell it to him without going through a background check," says Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America and a professor at UCLA School of Law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36522570
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2016 12:25 AM, Bod wrote:

Bod,
Stop this shite. The bad guys get their gun over here the same way they get them everywhere else: from the black market. The same guys that sell drugs sell guns too. Same as in England.
Gun laws only affect the law abiding, not the criminal, be they in the government or private individuals.
-T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/06/2016 08:45, T wrote:

owner will be allowed to own that gun legally, hence the "Gun show loophole"....no? If so, then that makes a mockery of gun checks.
*Serious question*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess you don't pay attention to the news. The guy who murdered people in Florida bought his guns at a gun shop. He was suspected of terrorists ideas and watched by the FBI for a year, but after they decided there was no evidence except his spouting off, they stopped watching him and the background check on him didn't show his affection for al queda and hezbollah. Maybe they'll change that.
And your boy Rump doesn't care about the facts. He claimed the killer was born in "Afghan" (He doesn't seem to know the difference between the name of the country and the name of a person who lives there.) In fact he was born in NYCity, only a few miles from Rump.
Anyhow, your basic argument, and Monster's, is that because it's not possible to Constitutionally stop all imprudent gun sales, then why bother to stop any? It's this kind of thinking that really impresses me about you two.

I know you're serious. I could tell in your first post too. I'm serious too. I finally got around to asking my friend from NYC how he managed to own a gun in Manhattan, and he said he followed all the rules (which might be a little stricter now but still wouldn't be a big problem), and he didn't have a permit to carry it, except back and forth from a gun range or a repair shop. He's also a lawyer and I asked him about the gun show loophole and based on things he read in the news (and of course you don't have to be a lawyer to read the news, but he's pretty smart too), he said that he didn't think there was one, because they do or are supposed to do background checks when people buy guns at gun shows. And your very example was at a gun range, not a gun show.
So two things: 1)The big loophole seems to be the private sale loophole, and this may include people who don't sell enough guns (say, per year) to qualify as a gun dealer, but who still might set up a booth a gun show to sell whatever the maximum is for which one is still not a dealer**, but even though one of the two situations here is a gun show, and you are by far not the only one who calls it the gun show loophole, I think it's clear that it should be called the private sale loophole.
It seems absurd and hard to believe that this is actually a mistake on so many people's parts, and yet, background checks are required for dealers at gun shows.
2) There is a gun show loophole aiui in that, while most replies on gun checks are within a few seconds, some take much longer, and if they don't get an answer to their background check within 2 or maybe 3 days, I forget, they are free to sell the gun without hearing back one way or the other. I don't really know why some checks take days.
And of course Dadioh's comparison's with cars is pointless. How many people go out and buy a car with the intention of killing other people.
The "problem" with you three is that you've never had a close family member murdered by someone with a gun, so you don't care about others who have had that. You've probably never had a not-close family member or "friend" murdered by someone with a gun, or maybe you have but didn't really care.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/16 6:54 AM, Micky wrote:

Define imprudent (as anything objective). This guy wouldn't have been stopped because the FBI had suspected him, but found no cause to arrest and closed the case. His wife never got around to actually filing charges. So, like many, this wasn't an imprudent gun sale except in hindsight.

How many buy a gun with the intention. Most get it for protection and hope not to have use it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:07:26 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"

I don't know if a second look at him would have found anything or not, but the argument you too must be reaching for here is that if we can't stop, or can't be sure to stop, some killers, then we shouldn't have procedures that can stop any of them.

About 100 times higher than buy cars for that reason. Count the number of murders with guns versus with cars. And then deduct the murders with guns where the person had no intention of murder when he bought the gun, and you'll see what I mean.

murder people with one, and they ought to put some effort into achieving such a goal, instead of just thinking about when called on it, but instead the attitude seems to be, "I want my gun, I don't want rules interfering with my getting my gun and the hell with all of you."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/2016 7:22 AM, Micky wrote:

Micky, your argument is one of trying to make your opponent look absurd. I have little respect for peole who try to put words in others mouths (or usenet posts).
One way to stop mass killers is to have armed citizens on site. When the mass killer goes into action, a citizen can stop the killing with a well placed shot.
It's happened before. A citizen onsite can stop a msss murderer sooner than a policeman who has to come from another call, some distance away.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/16 7:22 AM, Micky wrote:

No what I AM saying is that we should have procedures that there is some indication actually work before we start them. Otherwise we are doing something just to be doing SOMETHING without any idea they would actually work.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/2016 7:51 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

The question is how to define success. Based on the actual, emprical results of gun prohibition laws (look at Chicago, IL, or Australia, or UK), I wonder if that's what the politicians want for the USA? Victim disarmament, and higher crime. Perhaps there is a hidden agenda, that the pols are pushing, but which we aren't being told. For example, maybe the pols want higher crime?
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:07:58 -0400, Stormin Mormon

Are you a crackpot? That's as stupid as Trump's similar innuendo yesterday. When he said that he was either a liar or crackpot, and I know he's a liar but he might be a crackpot too.

Putting a question mark at the end does little or nothing to make you look less like a crackpot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/2016 9:39 AM, Micky wrote:

Same tactic as got us Obama Care. They make a total mess of some thing and claim that only a severe and draconian law will help.
Only in this case, they want to confiscate all legal guns, instead of forcing everyone into government health care.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:51:31 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"

My mistake. Sorry.

Well, by now you've snipped what I said so someone reading only your post might think I suggested "SOMETHING without any idea they would actually work." I didn't do that. I didn't suggest anything. I only criticized T's attitude and that the man he supports, that Rump, again, doesn't care what the truth is.
So I didn't suggest anything and you didnt' suggest anything that would help. Do you think there is nothing that can be done to alleviate the problem of people murdering others with guns?

It's not pulled from a hat. It's correct. There are 33,000 deaths by firearms in the USA in a typical year, including over 11,000 murders. Are you saying there are more than 110 murders by car each year? If so, how many? I say there are fewer and my 100 times as many murders by guns as by car is conservative.

You can't tell that by what they say. Few even pay lip service to the problem of people murdered by guns.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Micky pretended :

Sure, take away their access to guns. Well, you can't, but maybe take away *everyone's* access to guns.
The problem is that crazies bent on murder can accomplish the same with pepper spray. People have a tendency to trample each other to death at the slightest provocation. A colostomy bag full of gasoline and a bic lighter could have easily killed even more people than the so-called assault rifle did. Dumping ammonia bleach, available just about anywhere, into the ventillation system of a crowded nightclub would be just as deadly I suspect. Deadly gas can be manufactured in the privacy of your own home, as can slower acting poisons and biological weapons like bacteria and viruses to be put in food, air, or water supplies. You can't address the problem by controlling the tools used, you have to address the tool users.
Blaming the religion they purport to follow, publically, does nothing more than make the good followers of that religion (if there indeed are any) make the choice to embrace the murderous Islamic Extremists out of self-preservation against the hate-mongers who also want to incite rebellion against religions other than their own. Yes, I'm talking about good Ultra-Conservative Christians (if there indeed are any) who think that their mantra 'love thy neighbor' doesn't apply to Muslims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

I see, more of the PC nonsense. Calling muslim terrorists what they are, muslim terrorists, is somehow going to make all those good muslims hate us and become terrorists. Well, if they can't understand that muslim terrorist doesn't apply to them, then I guess they can't be that good.
"self-preservation against the hate-mongers who also want to incite rebellion against religions other than their own. "
Only ones I see doing that in the world today are muslims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4 has brought this to us :

No, that's not at all what I said. I'm all for including Islam and/or Muslim when describing a terrorist group which identifies itself with that ideology. It is, after all, what they are.

I agree with that also, I don't want *them* here either. I want Americans who believe in the American way of life to be in America. If they would rather have their previous culture here than be part of American culture, then they shouldn't come here - stay where their previous culture made it so comfortable for them. It even bothers me when I hear them say "Muslim American" as if Muslim comes first and American comes second. Same with the Mexican Americans.

Then you need to open your eyes a little wider. Surely the Muslims are the most 'in your face' about it right now, but they are not the only ones.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 8:44:06 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

Ok, I thought you were buying Obama's line that saying muslim terrorist was going to incite all the good muslims against us. But beyond that, there are serious problems with the muslim religion itself. When you have whole muslim countries that following Sharia law put gays to death, it's not hard to see how it's just one more step for Mateen to wind up doing what he did.

I meant in the sense of across the whole world and to the extent that muslims are doing it. Of course I recognize that there are some others inciting rebellion based on religion, but nothing like the extent of the problem with ISIS. Give us the religion based terrorist organizations operating in the world today, other than muslims? Compare their carnage to the muslims. Any attacks in the USA?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4 explained on 6/15/2016 :

Indeed. Just look at the state they all seem to be in whether it is the societal system or the direct result of the religion or lack of separation of church and state - they all seem to be a real mess IMO.
Why they want to escape from conditions there and bring the cause of the mess here I cannot fathom. IMO their religion does need a serious overhaul.

Yes, they definitely get top billing in that respect. IMO they're not doing it strictly because of Islam, but to start a holy war. What kind of established "Islam" would condone the killing of other Muslims based on not being "real" Muslims or just not Muslim enough to suit their unique interpretation of Islam.
One thing I really do like about Trump is that he is pushing back against the out of control PC crap that the liberals have been pushing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/2016 9:59 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

How many Muslims have you heard saying "we condemn the violence, that is so totally not what we believe"?
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/16 9:28 AM, Micky wrote:

Not hardly. I was further expanding on the part you interrupted to put in your apology. You have done that twice so far.

Never said you did. You want changes it is your responsibility to suggest them (and mine to find fault-grin).

discussed how many of the guns were bought with the INTENT to kill someone which was your main point apparently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:28:30 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:

That's the problem. You libs just say we need to do *something*, but don't offer anything specific that would have made a difference. Doing something just for the sake of doing something doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

IDK, you're the one that wants to do something, so it's up to you to come up with whatever that would be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.