The Florida *Gun show loophole*

Page 3 of 5  
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:33:18 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:

What Trump keeps saying is "until we figure out what's going on". We know what's going on. And if Trump is the candidate for president then he should know better than anyone what's going on and what the required solution is, not give vague blanket bans.
The first problem is that no matter how much vetting you do, it's impossible to root out these terrorists to be, especially second generation ones. Farook's wife for example, was checked out, met with consulate staff a couple times. She appeared to be an ordinary Pakistani on her way to get married here. Even in the aftermath, media interviews with her family, friends, etc didn't produce any red flags. So, short of having CIA agents follow every person like that around 24/7 for a year, or tapping their communications overseas, I don't see how you're going to do some twist on the vetting and stop it.
The second problem is that Trump called for a complete shutdown on muslims entering the USA, not just immigration. That would mean the Canadian businessman who's a muslim could not come here, nor could the mayor of London or the King of Jordan.
The third problem is there is no way to identify who is a muslim and who is not. It's just like the gun bans, only the non-criminals will comply.
That's why I think a better solution is to just substantially reduce the number of immigrants that we allow in from the terrorist countries. You cut it 75%, you've sure reduced the number of potential problems.

Obviously they have a clue and are doing an overall good job. Of course every time they get a future Farook, you're here posting that it was a setup, entrapment, etc. I don't see introducing an undercover FBI agent to one of those suspected types and selling them bomb making materials or weapons, entrapment. They have interecepted and prevented a lot of attacks. Nothing is going to be 100%. In the case of Mateen, we'll have to see all the facts to figure out what more could have been done. The FBI had him under surveillance, monitored his communications, interviewed people, including him twice, set him up with an undercover agent, etc. Just because they didn't find anything, doesn't mean that they screwed up. And if the govt was putting people on lists that prevent them from buying guns with nothing substantial to back it up, I think the gun rights people, including you, would be up in arms about it. Of course they can't do that because current law doesn't allow it.

We know in many cases. With countries in civil war, then I agree. But it's not like there is some majic new approach that is going to clear up that fog.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/15/2016 07:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I am impressed you thing the government runs so smoothly. How many billions have been spent now? How much surveillance has been condoned? How about the 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here' wheeze?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 10:07:46 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:

See, there you go again. First you complain that the FBI isn't doing enough, then you complain about how much surveillance has been condoned. Typical Monday morning quarterback.
'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here'
The problem is Obama's idea of fighting them is to take baby steps and to miss the huge opportunities that would have made a difference. Letting ISIS grow out of the ashes of Al Qaeda. Ignoring ISIS, calling it JV even as it started to take over Iraq. Pulling all US troops out of Iraq. We had 10,000 troops there and a stable Iraq, no ISIS. He let if fall, now we have 5,000 troops back and Iraq lost and we're hoping to get it back to where it was in 2011. Biggest act of failing to act was when ISIS was driving all those tanks, Humvees, artillery back to Syria. Obama watched and would not order air strikes. THAT isn't fighting, it's wussing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/15/2016 08:52 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I'm not complaining the FBI isn't doing enough. I'm stating that for all the money poured down the rathole, all the warrantless snooping, and so forth they have their head up their ass.
I know you like to have it all ways; run down Trump, shill for the government, or whatever your fancy is that day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2016 03:54 AM, Micky wrote:

Seriously? Murdered by a gun is any different than a knife or bat or hammer or car? Seriously?
Guns are insurrection weapons. The rest are not. That is why the totalitarianist don't care about the rest.
Banning guns won't stop murder or suicide. It will enable us to sit in tyranny and not be able to do a thing about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2016 02:37 AM, Bod wrote:

If you met some random person in a Walmart parking lot would you sell them a firearm where the paper trail would lead to you? Would you sell to someone you know personally? Conversely, would you buy a firearm from someone you met in a Walmart parking lot?
Yes, it's possible but I think the gun show loophole is overstated. Of course, being an undocumented transaction, who knows? otoh, Hasan, Farook, and Mateen didn't go shopping at gun shows.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".
The facts are these: (1) Every licensed firearms dealer is required by law to conduct a background check on every purchaser, on every purchase, whether that purchase takes place at the dealer's regular place of business, at a gun show, or anywhere else. (2) Private individuals are not required to conduct background checks. (3) Most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers, not individuals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oren wrote:

Here are a few more FACTS for the ignorant http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/mass-shootings/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/14/2016 08:44 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

It's as accurate as most other liberal usages. Call it what it is, private sale loophole, and I still think it's overstated unless you mean DuWayne selling Tylenol a Raven .32 in some alley.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/14/16 10:07 PM, rbowman wrote:

I need to get around to looking for some newer stats, but these are still instructive.The only stats I could find right off (admittedly 1997) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics looked at those who were carrying at the time of their offense. (BTW: only about 1 in 3 who were carrying were convicted for violent crimes). Of these, 8.3% bought at retail stores, 0.7% got their guns at gun shows and another 1.0% got them from pawnshops. Roughly 4 of ten got them from friends/relatives (39.6% and about the same (39.2) got them from illegal sources. So amongst the bad guys, 80% came from places that can't be regulated.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:37:50 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:

The buyer in a private sale is only allowed to legally own the gun if he's legally allowed to own that gun in that state period. Avoiding the background check doesn't make the transaction legal. For example, if you're a felon, then it's still illegal, no matter how you acquire it. And it should be called the "private sale loophole", because that is what it is. The overwhelming number of guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed gun dealers, just like if you walked into their store.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/06/2016 16:33, trader_4 wrote:

Ah, that answers one of my previous queries, thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bod wrote:

We can also sell our car to anyone who wants to buy it even if he/she doesn't have a driving license.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/06/2016 11:22, dadiOH wrote:

Yes, but what that law implies, is that the buyer can then *legally own that gun* even though he hasn't been vetted, hence the *Gun show loophole*.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bod wrote:

There is a presumption of fitness to own inherent in every gun sale , whether private or from a FFL dealer . If some wild-eyed slack jawed drooler such yourself came up to me at a gun show (I don't actually go to them ...) and said "Uh wanna buy yer gun " I'm sure not going to sell to him . Most responsible gun owners feel that way too ... but there are others who don't care and they are the problem . Whether on the street corner or in the show , if a criminal wants a gun he/she is going to find a way . And they aren't going to obey any new laws any more than they do the ones we have now . And it's the same where you live too , if there's a want there's someone to fill it . bang bang
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't speak to the rest of the world but the US has demonstrated that we have far more trouble when we make something illegal than when we legalize it. That is a fact that is totally lost on drug warriors and leads to most of the shootings. They tend to be people nobody cares about shooting other people nobody cares about so we do not hear much of the details but it does drive the statistics.
I doubt a "gun war" would do anything but make millions of new criminals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:

The law implies no such thing. Whether a federal database check is run or not, has nothing to do with whether the sale itself is legal. If I sell any gun to a person I know is a felon, it's a crime. If state law requires a permit to buy a pistol and I sell it to someone without one, it's a crime. If I directly sell a gun to someone from out of state, in most states that's a crime. There are a lot of laws on the books like that and whether you run a check or not doesn't change it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bod posted for all of us...

Why do you say that? Just because you don't want it doesn't mean the person standing next to you doesn't. You are ingrained to not have it. We are ingrained to let people decide for themselves.
I am no history major so others can help here: Taxation without representation, right to firearms, free speech, warrant-less searches, structure of the gov't. There are more, I'm sure, but my foggy brain is not kicked in. Keep in mind that as time has gone on there are changes to both countries.
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of the Bill of Rights is in direct response to abuses by the British crown.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/15/2016 05:00 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

Or you could say the Bill of Rights was the peoples' response to the open-ended big government blueprint that came out of the closed session that was supposed to just touch up the Articles of Confederation.
It goes without saying the Bill of Rights consists of amendments; they were not part of the original document or intent of the authors.
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.