The Florida *Gun show loophole*

Page 2 of 5  
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:28:26 -0400, Micky

(Thought I posted this yesterday)
And btw that is why my answer to your remark was wrong. Because your answer to my remark was unrelated to it. I didn't suggest any remedy, let alone suggest doing something for which people had, or others would say they had, no idea if they would work. So I tried to make sense of your answer, as if it were an answer, and what I came up with was " 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." That's a popular concept that forms the backbone of many objections to other people's ideas. I'm glad to hear you don't think that.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2016 05:22 AM, Micky wrote:

How about the highway death count? More people kill other people or themselves through incompetence than intent. Or death by medical misadventure?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:22:56 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:

I don't see anyone making that argument. We already have thousands of laws on the books covering guns, who can buy them, who can't, etc.

And if we had no guns, you don't think terrorists would shift to cars, pressure cookers, amfuel, etc? What happened in Paris and Brussels? They have super strict gun laws, yet the terrorists had the same gun that Mateen did. That's because just like with cocaine and heroin, you can still easily find what you want, if that's your intention.

When you have an actual proposal for the new law that's going to make a substantial difference, then we can talk. Meantime, ask Obama why they aren't enforcing the laws already on the books. Something like 90,000 people have failed the federal background check, yet only a few dozen have been prosecuted. See any problem there? And why gun owners are then suspicious of passing new laws, when you won't enforce the ones we already have?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2016 09:53 AM, trader_4 wrote:

A Brit should understand that. iirc, they had a bit of a problem with the IRA, which never had all that many active members and was comprised of Catholics who only blew themselves up by mistake.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/2016 7:07 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

Selling a high capacity gun to a twenty some thing year old Muslim male? Imprudent?
On my facebook a few months ago, I read of a gun store which refuses to sell guns to Muslims. Makes as much sense as any thing I've read.
--
.
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 6/14/2016 7:07 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

And that's the problem. Someone walks into a gun store, how to tell if the customer is a self defense customer, or a killer in the making. I propose to look at the mass killers in recent history, and see what they all have in common. That will be a big help in preventing future mass murders.
--
.
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 6/14/2016 6:54 AM, Micky wrote:

Do I gather that anyone who had a family member murdered is therefore required to demand that peaceful and law abiding people be disarmed by law, while the criminals keep thier guns? Is that your position, Micky?
--
.
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 07:28:23 -0400, Stormin Mormon

No. And you're obviously not interested in my position, or you wouldn't have come up with your absurd question.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/2016 8:03 AM, Micky wrote:

So, you mean that a return to the Creator endowed RKBA is needed, with repeal of all gun laws?
--
.
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 06/15/2016 05:11 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

So people who don't subscribe to your particular Creator don't have rights? How does that work?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/06/2016 11:54, Micky wrote:

Ok and thanks for the detailed explanation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I should have made clear that you weren't included in "you three". (Especially since I'm the one who wants each post to be clear within itself.)

On the theory that I couldn't be the only one to notice this, I looked in that font of information and it had an entry and it said: "Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, or private sale exemption is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market"". Which, from "referring" on is, I think, what I said.
If most of these private sales were to occur at gun shows, then the expression is properly named, and indeed, I've twice had a booth at hamfests where I sold miscellaneous stuff, nothing for more than $2 iirc. If one has a gun or two to sell, it would be worth paying for a table where he could get a much better price, I think, than advertising on a web page.
I chose a gun show at random and it charged $75 for a one-day table and 120 for 3 days. Even if you only had one gun to sell, you might well get your $75 back by selling for a higher price, plus you might want to go to the gunshow anyhow, and if you were selling several, it definitely could pay, plus you wouldn't have those sleazy gun-buyers coming to your house, knowing where you live. Despite all the advantages and disadvantages, ultimately this is a question of fact, what percentage of private gun sales are at gun shows? AND Isn't it still misleading to call it a *gun show* loophole when even there it only applies to private sales.
NOW I REMBERBER, I think the reason was that originally only gun shops were required to do background checks and later, dealers at gun shows were required also. So the name is an artifact.
If there is already a dealer there doing background checks, there is already an internet connection, which is not surprising (since even dial-up would be more than good enough for the small amount of data transfer needed for a BCheck), it would be easy enough to require private sellers to do BChecks at gun shows also. So that is a suggestion I'm making.
This would drive some of them out of gun shows because they could get higher prices from convicted criminals, those with terrorist backgrounds, and others who can't pass the BC, and they woudln't have to meet them at their home. They could meet in a parking lot, like I did when I bought computer speakers. However they could also require BChecks from all private sales and though it would be hard to enforce, it would be enough to stop some sellers, and sometimes they woudl get caught and if a couple were jailed for violating this, t hat would stop a lot of others. So that's my other suggestion.
Does anyone think there is no indication these two ideas would actually work before we start them? That we would be ding something just to be doing SOMETHING without any idea they would actually work." I'm sure both of these ideas have already been proposed and that the the NRA has opposed them.
Written earlier, not so sure anymore: But I still think most of these sales are made at private houses etc. not gun shows, and it occurs to me that I should be happy if the idea is misnamed. It might send some prospectiver murderers to gun shows where they find that because they can't pass the background check, they can't buy a gun and since many of these people are losers anyhow, or for other reasons, they might be stymied, never buy the gun, and never kill anyone.
This event was btw another example of how the "news" encourages crime, by pointing out what gun he used and describing it as iirc "reliable". We would be better off if they said nothing or they claimed he used a .22 or a BB gun, or some gun guaranteed to misfire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:09:53 -0400, Micky

Because just as the saying goes, Better for 10 guilty to go free than one innocent man to be convicted, the NRA believes, Better for 10 criminals to get a gun than one eligible person be denied.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/2016 9:21 AM, Micky wrote:

Not unlike "My neighbors wife had an illicit affair with a man she met on vacation. I fear my wife will do the same here at home so I'll cut YOUR balls off to prevent it!"
Very logical, Micky.
If there was a way to ensure that ALL guns could be made to disappear forever I'd happily agree to that. But it can never be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:09:59 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:

Wrong. If you have a FFL, you have always had to comply with the same laws whether you sell the gun at your store or at a show. The "gun show loophole" is a creation of your dishonest lib friends in the media.

I have no problem with closing the loophole. Not because I think it will actually do anything to keep criminals from getting guns, but just so we won't have to listen to the whining when some mass murderer finally buys one that way and it can be shown that he would have failed the federal check. So far, it hasn't happened.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2016 08:09 AM, Micky wrote:

Have you ever been to a gun show? Do you have any idea what you're babbling about? Do you know what a 4473 is?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rbowman posted for all of us...

Nope, only a Binford 6100.
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:54:45 -0400, Micky

I should have included that I don't know but I think the number of guns sold when the background check doesn't come back within the required time is, I'll bet, small, compared to the number of guns sold privately. And if so, point 1 is, I suspect, a bigger problem than 2.
OTOH, I don't think it's because the computer is down that the background checks don't come back promptly, and again it's just a suspicion but based on a variety of experience with bureaucracy, rather than guns, I think the delay is much more likely for people who are marginal or would fail the background check, so that would make 2 a bigger problem than otherwise.
OT3H, it's seems inescapable that the number of people buying guns privately includes a higher percentage of trouble makers because they tend to be the ones who can't pass a background check.
At any rate, there are two problems and both should be alleviated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 6:54:50 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:

Trump's point is still valid. We let Mateen's parents immigrate here. The father is an anti-American supporter of the Taliban. Had we not let him in, their would be no second generation to take it a step further. Same with Farook, his parents came from Pakistan, the wife who was the other terrorist, came only a year before. Boston bombers? Hello? I don't think we should necessarily stop all immigration from muslim terrorist countries, but we certainly have the right to substantially reduce the numbers, not increase them. How has importing a lot of them worked out for Europe?

We're already stopping a lot of them with the federal background check system. Now go ask OBama of the 90,000 people who have failed that check how many they have prosecuted for breaking federal law? It's a mere few dozen. See anything wrong there?

That's right. But the media likes to mislead people, I wonder why? This is so simple, so basic, impossible they could be that dumb.

The problem with you is that you seem to think that one more gun law is going to make a difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2016 09:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Trump's point is extremely valid. He never said to ban Muslims forever, only until the authorities get their act together. Mateen, Farook, and the Tsarnaev's are textbook cases that DHS, FBI, or whatever alphabetical agency is supposed to be separating the goats from the sheep don't have a clue. Russia even went out of their way to tell the FBI about Tsarnaev.
It's the same in the mid-East. The US has no clue if the people they are supporting are really on the right side, and that goes for entire governments.
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.