Not really. I don’t live in a constant fear for my life, so I don’t need to carry a gun around with me.
I do feel sorry for all the people who are terrified to leave their homes without having a gun, though.
You still haven’t explained how you can trust anybody.
While we are on the topic of people snapping, how many times in your life would you have “snapped” and killed somebody if you’d had a gun?
Yet we trust them with guns. (I’m okay with that, in general, but let’s not pretend there’s a distinction between “good guys” and “criminals.” Every criminal was once a “good guy.”)
Yes, that is true. However, I find the “one bad day away…” idea asinine every time it gets brought up in the context of gun control. If we are all “one bad day away” from being killers, then nobody can be trusted with anything dangerous, ever.
Nor seeing how that is speaking to the “gun show loophole?”
I think you misunderstood. I was sarcastically responding to your sarcastic comment of “Nobody can be trusted at all. Ever.” when I said that there was no way to tell that someone was a danger until they started killing, this was in response to your argument that in order to prevent people killing, then we would have to take guns away from everyone.
Not even once, but I could see a path that could end that way. If you lost your job, your family, your friends, your personal financial security, and you started out being somewhat mentally unstable, a mass shooting may be in your future.
It’s not one bad day, it’s a bad week, a bad month, a bad year. Most of the time, the warning signs are there, long before they go on a murderous rampage.
I apologize, I would have thought you were aware of the fact that, the gun show loophole actually has little to do with actual gun shows, in fact, even less, as most of the people selling at gun shows are actually ffls these day, but is instead the practice of selling a gun from one private individual to another, in which case, the first individual is not responsible for running a background check, like an ffl would. This means that you could sell your gun to a criminal, or someone who otherwise would be legally prohibited from buying a gun, with no liability on your self.
Actually, I did, and it doesn’t mention the gun show loophole or gun shows at all. It runs down through a list of the most common means for criminals to obtain guns, and “gun show loophole” didn’t make the cut. What conclusion could you draw from its omission?
I am aware of that, but the snippet you quote is about straw purchasers, who would not be needed if the seller is not running a background check. . . so there’s still nothing in the article about the gun show loophole of private sales.
The straw purchaser is a legal buyer from an FFL who is so named because he’s a “strawman,” not the actual purchaser.
And if you’re thinking that closing the gun show loophole would make straw purchases illegal – they are already illegal, for reasons having nothing to do with private sales.
So: what the heck are you talking about?
You might want to get your vocabulary sorted out. “gun show loophole” refers to private-party sales at gun shows. It is not a significant source of “crime guns”. Straw purchases refers to (one form of) illegal sales at an FFL.
What it sounds like you want is “universal background checks”, which is a broader proposal than ‘closing the gun show loophole’, but still does nothing to prevent straw purchasers.
ETA: Are you now prepared to concede your original claim that “Just removing the “gun show loophole” would cut these down fairly dramatically” or are you going to continue citing unrelated pieces of information?
Hardly- less than 100 since 1982:
Not only not* nearly every day*, nor nearly every week, but not even nearly every month.
There’s no such thing as the “gun show loophole”, and iirc no mass shootings were performed with a gun bought at one.
Those seem to be mostly "straw man sales’ which do need some more enforcement. But are already illegal.
He’s suggesting that “gun loophole” and universal background check mean the same thing. They don’t but I’ll happily concede it for this discussion, since even if he’s talking universal background check a straw purchase could still happen. And if he’s saying it would criminalize the straw purchaser giving the guys to the true purchaser — that’s already illegal.
I was using this definition.
I did not think that I was the first one to use the term “gun show loophole” to refer to the secondary market of private, non-ffl sellers who do not run background checks on the people to which they sell guns.
More than one a day.
Okay, so it is possible that I do not understand the difference between the gun show loophole, in which a private person can sell a gun to another private person without a background check, and a strawman sale, in which a private person can sell a gun to another private person without a background check, except maybe in the second case, that the gun was specifically bought for the second person, and in the first case, the gun was one you just happened to have for sale.
The fact that the second case is illegal is all well and good, but the fact that you do not need to run a background check on a person before you sell them a gun is a loophole that does put guns into the hands of people who are legally proscribed from having them.
Sure, I agree with that. What I don’t agree with is your claim here:
I accept for this discussion that “gun show loophole,” and “private sale loophole,” and “lack of universal background check,” all mean the same thing.
I still don’t agree with your “dramatically” claim.
Few people accept that definition. Most people dont look upon a gang battle as a “mass shooting”.
I used Mother Jones, which is pretty darn independent.
That is true. But of course, pretty much you have to do that- considered a Dad giving his young man his first .22 rifle, handed down in the family. Or a widow of a police officer, shot down in duty, who wants to give his service pistol to his partner. Those would require going thru a FFL dealer, who normally charge pretty big bux for that service.
Strawman sales have been illegal since 1964 or so, and the ATF doesnt do much about them, in fact they seem to actually encourage them.
I am operating off of this quote
Now, I have discovered before that things in the media are incorrect, but this seems to me, that if you could eliminate straw purchase sales, then you would have less gun crime.
And, ti does seem to me that the ability to transfer a gun from one person to another without a background check is what makes straw purchase possible.
I mean, if I walk up to you, and say, “Nice gun, give you $3k for it.” that’s not a straw purchase, as you did not buy it for the intent of selling it to someone that you knew was ineligible, but you still could well be selling it to someone who is, so I don’t see the difference.
Requiring background checks for all weapon transfers (and I would consider carrying a CCW to be essentially an instant background check), would make strawmanning much harder, as the only difference, from what I understand, between that and a private sale is the intent and knowledge of the seller.
Okay, I can accept that you don’t look at it this way, and not having a poll, I couldn’t contradict you on how most people look at it, but I see people getting shot. If your point is that they deserved it, or brought it upon themselves or something like that, I can understand why you would think that way, but I would not agree.
I see on a different article on the same site
So, yeah, differences in counting. they decided to not count the bulk of the murders done with guns. I can see why they did that, because they are highlighting the mass shooters that are mentally unstable, and as they also said in the article,
This is where the legally acquired weapons, which constitute the majority of mass shootings need to be curtailed a bit.
I don’t know the best way of going about it, but in many of these cases, there were pretty obvious warning signs ahead of time, that should have made people restrict their access to dangerous objects that could harm those around them.
And, as I said, I would consider a CCW to be as good as a background check for private sales or transfers.
I am not sure exactly if that’s always the case, though. When my grandfather died, he left his rifles to my father. I don’t know that he didn’t go through an ffl to transfer them, but as he is rather vocal about everything he does that is any sort of inconvenience, I don’t see why he would not have.
Maybe my dad’s just breaking the law, I dunno.
That seems a problem to me. Do you know why that would be?
Speculation here, but is it because there is no real difference between a strawman sale, and a private sale, other than the intent and knowledge of the seller, and knowledge and intent are probably the two hardest things to prove?
It is interesting that in it’s first test of Gun Rights, the Trump Admin came down firmly on the same side as the Obama admin:
Meh
As a rather hard-core gun rights activist, I’m mildly disappointed. I’d rank my disappointment somewhere between the feeling I get when my steak is overcooked and it raining on a Saturday.
ETA: but kudos to Gura for apparently finding an edge case of non-violent misdemeanors “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to challenge. I hope he wins.