(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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.