Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, I pointed out what is called a violation of the gun law isn't violence. There were only around 35 homicides by gun, so there couldn't be the amount of gun violence you claimed. Why don't you do some research on what you post and stop hiding behind generalities and confusion to deceive?

You don't ever have to say didn't think so, because we know you don't think.

You declared that the numbers you didn't look at were wrong, and then made up different numbers about something else to prove you are right? Do you really think that is going to work?

Tell me something, how is someone using a gun to commit a robbery not gun violence? Does it only count if someone dies?

They had around 35 homicides by gun and we had over 11,000 that year. You made your typical lying claims and it's obvious there weren't 11,000 violent incidences involving guns in the UK.

Post a report from the UK with definitions and don't say you did!

What difference does your bullshit make? You've already lost and the more you go on making these wild claims, the more you will lose.

You keep repeating that like it proves something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your problem Windbag is you are inherently dishonest, which is a nice way of calling you a pathological liar.

The UC Davis study says:

Source: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGScoverprefweb.pdf

....and you change it to:

....so you change:

....less than 2% of felons incarcerated for crimes to 2% of people who are incarcerated for gun violence

....and:

....acquired those guns themselves at gun shows to used guns that went through a gun show at some point in the past

Now, why do you make those types of changes and why were you so stupid that you thought you could get away with it?

Did you notice I just quote the words of the study and allow others to read them? I don't change it and you do.

Let me see if you can handle something you have never done yourself.

I fucked up by relying on memory instead of going back and reading the study again.

None the less, you are still wrong when you claim that criminals buy guns at gun shows.

What is to prevent a criminal, even a felon, from buying a gun at a gun show, when one third of the sales are private sales by occasional sellers and don't require paperwork, ID, background checks, waiting periods or even a conversation? You can't spot a felon by looking at them. Are all felons just too dumb to go there?

First off, there is no data to support the claim that one third of sales at guns shows are through private sellers.

Second, even private sellers at gun shows take steps to not sell to felons, mostly because, despite the blithering idiocy of the UC report, there are police and ATF agents at the gun shows, and no one wants to get caught selling to the wrong person.

Third, even if your number is accurate, I already did the math and it shows that this massive problem you are worried about amounts to less than 4% of total gun sales.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you have reading problems too?

The study talked about incarcerated felons for crimes involving guns personally obtaining the guns at gun shows. The study also mentioned gun shows amount to from 5% to 9% of gun sales. The data only says what it says. It could mean the felon told the authorities where he purchased the gun, or there were records because he could pass a background check, among other possible scenarios of how cops could trace it there.

It doesn't say a person couldn't pass a background check, buy a gun at a gun show even from a licensed dealer and later be incarcerated as a felon for a crime involving guns. A person acquiring a gun at a gun show either personally or otherwise could acquire it from an occasional seller and never leave a record. For that matter, someone could say they purchased a gun at a gun show from an occasional seller when they actually didn't.

The number is sort of meaningless, because it could easily reflect that they only know a small percentage of how someone who is now serving a sentence as a convicted felon for a crime involving guns obtained their gun or guns. What if they only know the source of the guns in 35% of such cases, does that mean gun shows aren't good places to obtain a gun and commit a felony with it and living up to their percentage of the market or more?

You have to analyze a report for what it's saying and get beyond the figures saying more than they say.

Yet you dismissed the study earlier when I used it to destroy your position that 40% of gun sales occur without background checks.

Interesting.

I didn't see it, didn't dismiss it.

You dismissed it because it didn't support your view. It wasn't until I pointed out that one of the drooling idiots that agrees with you posted it that you even looked at it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

lying sack of shit.

• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show

Read more: Where criminals get their guns | The Daily Caller

I am willing to bet that over 90% of the people who end up breaking the law after buying a gun at a gun show passed a background check when they bought those guns.

It's very doubtful it could be 90%, because only about two-thirds of the guns purchased at gun shows are from licensed dealers requiring background checks.

More than 85% of recovered crime guns have gone through at least one private party transaction following their initial sale by a licensed retailer.

Source: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGScoverprefweb.pdf

I don't think they have good stats on where a criminal purchased their gun, even when the gun is newly purchased. I think the stats are only based on the gun origins they know about and they don't try to trace the history of every gun involved in a crime.

And, as I pointed out earlier, even if we assume those numbers are correct, that amounts to about 3.4% of total gun sales. That means that 96.7% of gun sales do not go through this process, which makes my 90% estimate conservative.

 

[Vast LWC]

You keep repeating that like it proves something.

Yep.

England may have done away with gun violence, but their violent crime rate is actually now much higher than in the US.

However, their total homicide rate is lower.

So, it's a trade off.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?

You know what I like in a conversation?

When someone joins in, after not having paid attention to any of the prior debate, and tells everyone they are stupid, because they don't agree with a talking point that was proved false days before-hand.

It's one thing to not read the thread, and make a point that was previously debated, that's to be expected sometimes.

It's another to insinuate that everyone lacks intelligence because you didn't bother to read.

For the 4th time in this thread, PredFan, the "Gun Show Loophole" does in fact exist.

It refers to the fact that private sellers can sell guns without any form of documentation at all.

As per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The fact that "Gun Show" is in its title is misleading, as most of these sales do not necessarily occur at gun shows, but they do in fact occur at gun shows.

So it doesn't really involve gun shows.
And it's not a loophole.
But other than not existing it really does exist. Trust me.

What bugs me is the utter stupidity of people who cannot adhere to logic and keep repeating the same misinformation over and over.
If you want to limit people's ability to sell their personal goods privately, say that's what you want. Then we can discuss just how good an idea it is and how effective it will be in deterring crime.

 

[OriginalShroom]

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?

You know what I like in a conversation?

When someone joins in, after not having paid attention to any of the prior debate, and tells everyone they are stupid, because they don't agree with a talking point that was proved false days before-hand.

It's one thing to not read the thread, and make a point that was previously debated, that's to be expected sometimes.

It's another to insinuate that everyone lacks intelligence because you didn't bother to read.

For the 4th time in this thread, PredFan, the "Gun Show Loophole" does in fact exist.

It refers to the fact that private sellers can sell guns without any form of documentation at all.

As per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The fact that "Gun Show" is in its title is misleading, as most of these sales do not necessarily occur at gun shows, but they do in fact occur at gun shows.

In other words, it exists because you claim it exists..

Regardless of the fact that it really doesn't exist and never has existed. The Government has never required the private sale of firearms to be recorded.

 

[Vast LWC]

So it doesn't really involve gun shows.
And it's not a loophole.
But other than not existing it really does exist. Trust me.

What bugs me is the utter stupidity of people who cannot adhere to logic and keep repeating the same misinformation over and over.
If you want to limit people's ability to sell their personal goods privately, say that's what you want. Then we can discuss just how good an idea it is and how effective it will be in deterring crime.

loop·hole
/ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/
Noun
An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

Google Dictionary

Fits the definition of the word to a tee, as far as I can see.

And though it doesn't happen exclusively at Gun Shows, it does in fact happen regularly at Gun Shows, so it only a partial misnomer.

Certainly, however, the situation referred to by the term "Gun Show Loophole" does, in fact, exist, despite Right-Wing attempts to obfuscate the facts of the matter.

Would you be happier if from this point onward I referred to it as "The Private Sale Loophole"?

Certainly that would be a more accurate term, but we would of course have to explain to every newcomer to the conversation what the hell we meant by it.

 

[Vast LWC]

In other words, it exists because you claim it exists..

Regardless of the fact that it really doesn't exist and never has existed. The Government has never required the private sale of firearms to be recorded.

And why would that have anything to do with the term "Loophole"?

It isn't called the "Gun Show Reversal".

 

[Dubya]

In 1994 the federal statute called the Jacob Wetterling Act required all states to pass legislation requiring sex offenders to register with state sex offender registries. From the chart it looks like sexual assaults were already falling from 1991 due to the aids scare from Magic Johnson's announcement. So even that registered sex offender list may have failed us.

I see the right-wing is going after the sex offender vote. You must be getting desperate.

How will registering guns, good guys with guns or bad guys who should not own them work if registering sex offenders does not work????????????????????

Why would you believe knowing who the sex offenders are in an area hasn't worked?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So it doesn't really involve gun shows.
And it's not a loophole.
But other than not existing it really does exist. Trust me.

What bugs me is the utter stupidity of people who cannot adhere to logic and keep repeating the same misinformation over and over.
If you want to limit people's ability to sell their personal goods privately, say that's what you want. Then we can discuss just how good an idea it is and how effective it will be in deterring crime.

loop·hole
/ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/
Noun
An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

Google Dictionary

Fits the definition of the word to a tee, as far as I can see.

And though it doesn't happen exclusively at Gun Shows, it does in fact happen regularly at Gun Shows, so it only a partial misnomer.

Certainly, however, the situation referred to by the term "Gun Show Loophole" does, in fact, exist, despite Right-Wing attempts to obfuscate the facts of the matter.

Would you be happier if from this point onward I referred to it as "The Private Sale Loophole"?

Certainly that would be a more accurate term, but we would of course have to explain to every newcomer to the conversation what the hell we meant by it.

Of course it does, because you insist it exists simply because you insist it exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see the right-wing is going after the sex offender vote. You must be getting desperate.

How will registering guns, good guys with guns or bad guys who should not own them work if registering sex offenders does not work????????????????????

Why would you believe knowing who the sex offenders are in an area hasn't worked?

Why would you believe it has?

 

[Vast LWC]

Of course it does, because you insist it exists simply because you insist it exists.

It exists because it is printed in a law passed in 1986.

You can in fact, go a read said act, or read the laws that were codified from it here:

18 USC § 921 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Perhaps, in the Bizarro world of right-wing disinformation, you may feel that even that is not enough proof to make a dent in your bubble.

But for the rest of the population, it's definitive proof.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it does, because you insist it exists simply because you insist it exists.

It exists because it is printed in a law passed in 1986.

You can in fact, go a read said act, or read the laws that were codified from it here:

18 USC § 921 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Perhaps, in the Bizarro world of right-wing disinformation, you may feel that even that is not enough proof to make a dent in your bubble.

But for the rest of the population, it's definitive proof.

The problem with that argument is two fold.

First, nowhere in that link do I see the words "Gun show loophole."

Second, the legislation currently pending to close the "gun show loophole" specifically states it does not apply to private transactions.

 

[Vast LWC]

The problem with that argument is two fold.

First, nowhere in that link do I see the words "Gun show loophole."

Second, the legislation currently pending to close the "gun show loophole" specifically states it does not apply to private transactions.

First, that is a ridiculous statement, as a Loophole is:

An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

Second, that is due to the fact that the legislators are not in fact closing the Gun Show loophole in said pending legislation. Congress is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace once again.

 

[The Rabbi]

So it doesn't really involve gun shows.
And it's not a loophole.
But other than not existing it really does exist. Trust me.

What bugs me is the utter stupidity of people who cannot adhere to logic and keep repeating the same misinformation over and over.
If you want to limit people's ability to sell their personal goods privately, say that's what you want. Then we can discuss just how good an idea it is and how effective it will be in deterring crime.

loop·hole
/ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/
Noun
An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

Google Dictionary

Fits the definition of the word to a tee, as far as I can see.

And though it doesn't happen exclusively at Gun Shows, it does in fact happen regularly at Gun Shows, so it only a partial misnomer.

Certainly, however, the situation referred to by the term "Gun Show Loophole" does, in fact, exist, despite Right-Wing attempts to obfuscate the facts of the matter.

Would you be happier if from this point onward I referred to it as "The Private Sale Loophole"?

Certainly that would be a more accurate term, but we would of course have to explain to every newcomer to the conversation what the hell we meant by it.

Ok, you prove there is no loophole.
Is the fact that anyone can sell his private possessions without gov't interference ambiguous? No, it is quite clear. Anyone can do that. Is it inadequate? The question is, inadequate for what? Obviously not inadequate to prevent crime. Perhaps inadequate to facilitate further gov't control over our lives? Yes, perhaps.
So there is no loophole. It is the plain law. Any more than it is a loophole that allows people to hold yard sales. Maybe we need to close the "yardsale loophole"?

 

[Vast LWC]

Ok, you prove there is no loophole.
Is the fact that anyone can sell his private possessions without gov't interference ambiguous? No, it is quite clear. Anyone can do that. Is it inadequate? The question is, inadequate for what? Obviously not inadequate to prevent crime. Perhaps inadequate to facilitate further gov't control over our lives? Yes, perhaps.
So there is no loophole. It is the plain law. Any more than it is a loophole that allows people to hold yard sales. Maybe we need to close the "yardsale loophole"?

It is inadequate because it allows private sellers to sell weapons to criminals and the insane without fear of recrimination.

Since it is illegal to knowingly sell weapons to these groups, then that is quite definitely an inadequacy, and thus a loophole.

And if someone were to sell a deadly weapon to an insane murderer at a yard sale, then that would indeed be dangerous behavior.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ok, you prove there is no loophole.
Is the fact that anyone can sell his private possessions without gov't interference ambiguous? No, it is quite clear. Anyone can do that. Is it inadequate? The question is, inadequate for what? Obviously not inadequate to prevent crime. Perhaps inadequate to facilitate further gov't control over our lives? Yes, perhaps.
So there is no loophole. It is the plain law. Any more than it is a loophole that allows people to hold yard sales. Maybe we need to close the "yardsale loophole"?

It is inadequate because it allows private sellers to sell weapons to criminals and the insane without fear of recrimination.

Since it is illegal to knowingly sell weapons to these groups, then that is quite definitely an inadequacy, and thus a loophole.

And if someone were to sell a deadly weapon to an insane murderer at a yard sale, then that would indeed be dangerous behavior.

It does not allow tht at all. Criminals and the insane are strictly forbidden from buying guns from anyone. They are forbidden to own guns. They are forbidden to handle guns.
If someone sells to such a person he is violating the law.
Thus there is no loophole at all, even on your definition.

 

[Dubya]

The problem with that argument is two fold.

First, nowhere in that link do I see the words "Gun show loophole."

Second, the legislation currently pending to close the "gun show loophole" specifically states it does not apply to private transactions.

First, that is a ridiculous statement, as a Loophole is:

An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

Second, that is due to the fact that the legislators are not in fact closing the Gun Show loophole in said pending legislation. Congress is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace once again.

I think a universal background check (UBC) bill would pass and it would do away with the gun show loophole. It would require background checks on all purchases of firearms, even private sales. Without firearm registration though, the law would be nearly impossible to enforce, but it would prevent the open sale of firearms without background checks, like in gun shows and flea markets to a lesser extent, because they are less watched by law enforcement.

If a gun was involved in a crime and it could be proven the gun was purchased and resold without a background check after the law went into effect, that would result in a person being charged for a crime. That makes it risky to avoid selling a newly purchased gun, but if someone sold older firearms, how could it be proven when they were sold. That's why registration is needed as well, amongst the many other reasons why registration is needed.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem with that argument is two fold.

First, nowhere in that link do I see the words "Gun show loophole."

Second, the legislation currently pending to close the "gun show loophole" specifically states it does not apply to private transactions.

First, that is a ridiculous statement, as a Loophole is:

An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

Second, that is due to the fact that the legislators are not in fact closing the Gun Show loophole in said pending legislation. Congress is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace once again.

I think a universal background check (UBC) bill would pass and it would do away with the gun show loophole. It would require background checks on all purchases of firearms, even private sales. Without firearm registration though, the law would be nearly impossible to enforce, but it would prevent the open sale of firearms without background checks, like in gun shows and flea markets to a lesser extent, because they are less watched by law enforcement.

If a gun was involved in a crime and it could be proven the gun was purchased and resold without a background check after the law went into effect, that would result in a person being charged for a crime. That makes it risky to avoid selling a newly purchased gun, but if someone sold older firearms, how could it be proven when they were sold. That's why registration is needed as well, amongst the many other reasons why registration is needed.

Wow, are you dense.
How would you prove any firearm was transferred after a law took effect when there are no records required of that now?
Never mind a law like that is unconstitutional.