Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Lakhota]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

Call it what you want - but that doesn't change the fact that private sellers aren't required to perform background checks - even at gun shows. A licensed dealer could sell umpteen guns to an unlicensed private person (contingent upon passing background check) - and that person could then sell those guns to other unlicensed private persons without being legally required to perform background checks. Personally - I call that a "loophole"... a big "loophole"...

If you mean it's not a "loophole" in the legal sense because the law was never designed to fill that void - I agree.

I consider you one of the smartest posters on this board, so please correct me if my general facts are wrong.

 

[S.J.]

Hasn't this dead horse been beaten enough?

 

[Gadawg73]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

Call it what you want - but that doesn't change the fact that private sellers aren't required to perform background checks - even at gun shows. A licensed dealer could sell umpteen guns to an unlicensed private person - and that person could then sell those guns to other unlicensed private persons without being legally required to perform background checks. Personally - I call that a "loophole"... a big "loophole"...

If you mean it's not a "loophole" in the legal sense because the law was never designed to fill that void - I agree.

I consider you one of the smartest posters on this board, so please correct me if my general facts are wrong.

They claim universal background checks will lower gun deaths because criminals use straw men now to obtain their guns at gun shows.
So when we have universal background checks who will force the criminals to obey that and not go to buying all of their guns on the black market?
They claim it is a "good first step" and other nonsense with nothing whatsoever to back it up with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The NRA supports closing the Gun Show Loophole?

Then why are we having this conversation?

Also, you'll notice that in my above video, Wayne LaPierre calls the background check thing a "Loophole".

Because you insist that everyone conform to your version of reality even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that there is no gun show loophole?

What part of Wayne LaPierre calling it a gun show loophole did you not get?

Or do you feel that good ol' Wayne shares my liberal version of reality?

Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.

 

[Lakhota]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:



In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

Call it what you want - but that doesn't change the fact that private sellers aren't required to perform background checks - even at gun shows. A licensed dealer could sell umpteen guns to an unlicensed private person - and that person could then sell those guns to other unlicensed private persons without being legally required to perform background checks. Personally - I call that a "loophole"... a big "loophole"...

If you mean it's not a "loophole" in the legal sense because the law was never designed to fill that void - I agree.

I consider you one of the smartest posters on this board, so please correct me if my general facts are wrong.

They claim universal background checks will lower gun deaths because criminals use straw men now to obtain their guns at gun shows.
So when we have universal background checks who will force the criminals to obey that and not go to buying all of their guns on the black market?
They claim it is a "good first step" and other nonsense with nothing whatsoever to back it up with.

Speed limits are also a "good first step" - backed up by radar, law enforcement, courts and jails.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

Call it what you want - but that doesn't change the fact that private sellers aren't required to perform background checks - even at gun shows. A licensed dealer could sell umpteen guns to an unlicensed private person (contingent upon passing background check) - and that person could then sell those guns to other unlicensed private persons without being legally required to perform background checks. Personally - I call that a "loophole"... a big "loophole"...

If you mean it's not a "loophole" in the legal sense because the law was never designed to fill that void - I agree.

I consider you one of the smartest posters on this board, so please correct me if my general facts are wrong.

You want to know another reason it is not a loophole? Because it would violate the Constitution for the federal government to require background checks on all gun sales. Since we are talking about federal law here, not state law, there is no gun show loophole unless you think the constitution is a loophole.

 

[Gadawg73]

Call it what you want - but that doesn't change the fact that private sellers aren't required to perform background checks - even at gun shows. A licensed dealer could sell umpteen guns to an unlicensed private person - and that person could then sell those guns to other unlicensed private persons without being legally required to perform background checks. Personally - I call that a "loophole"... a big "loophole"...

If you mean it's not a "loophole" in the legal sense because the law was never designed to fill that void - I agree.

I consider you one of the smartest posters on this board, so please correct me if my general facts are wrong.

They claim universal background checks will lower gun deaths because criminals use straw men now to obtain their guns at gun shows.
So when we have universal background checks who will force the criminals to obey that and not go to buying all of their guns on the black market?
They claim it is a "good first step" and other nonsense with nothing whatsoever to back it up with.

Speed limits are also a "good first step" - backed up by radar, law enforcement, courts and jails.

How does law enforcement use radar to clock a speeding gun that is locked in my closet unloaded supposedly doing 55 in a 35 and what is the jail time for it?

 

[Lakhota]

They claim universal background checks will lower gun deaths because criminals use straw men now to obtain their guns at gun shows.
So when we have universal background checks who will force the criminals to obey that and not go to buying all of their guns on the black market?
They claim it is a "good first step" and other nonsense with nothing whatsoever to back it up with.

Speed limits are also a "good first step" - backed up by radar, law enforcement, courts and jails.

How does law enforcement use radar to clock a speeding gun that is locked in my closet unloaded supposedly doing 55 in a 35 and what is the jail time for it?

Think of analogy and metaphor...

 

[Dubya]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

It's been defined, so why do you want to change what someone is saying to meet you challenge of understanding?

The gun shop loophole has been closed in states, so they knew what it meant. We should have national laws prohibiting private sales without background checks and universal registration to enforce it. Since when should rational people allow "shit your pants" and "frequent nervous breakdowns" to influence what is best for Americans, when it comes to gun control? Americans fight for their country and don't avoid the service with a boil on their ass. They don't fly combat missions over the United States and tell others to fight for their country, when they didn't have the guts to do it personally. If you ain't got the balls to fight for your own country, you don't deserve having an opinion worth shit in that country, when it comes to fighting a war. This has been fucked up since a long time ago, or a maggot like Cheney would have never been Secretary of Defense. Look at the first person who held that job!

The cannon that pushed the British out of Boston came from Fort Ticonderoga where Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold capture that fort. Our first Secretary of War was Henry Knox and he suggested taking the cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston and did so during the winter carrying 60 tons of cannon and various armaments across 300 miles, over mountains, lakes whatever, to get them to Boston. That's what a man does for a country that doesn't even exist yet, so why aren't these present day people wanting to hold that office even worth a shadow of what men were like before them? Can't we as voters figure out the doers from the takers? Do we always have to imitate the UK in it's old beliefs that the elite know what is best for the people? At least the Brits would put their aristocracy on the battlefield, until even the coward had his day proving himself as such.

 

[arKangel]

Basically a poll arguing freedom Vs. "those who claim to be better than you"
Did you vote for freedom, or that there is a class of people who are better than you?

Are you a free person or a slave?

 

[Bfgrn]

It’s not a ‘loophole’ because there is no way for a background check to be conducted in the context of a private, intrastate sale between residents of the same state, regardless the venue, hence the wording of the law.

A loophole exists either unintentionally, due to the poor drafting of a law, or intentionally, were a remedy is at hand but rejected, creating the loophole to benefit a special interest.

Since there was no way for the authors of the legislation to contrive the mechanics necessary for background checks for private sales, there was no remedy available, and consequently no ‘loophole.’

Again, and at the very least, it’s inappropriate to attempt to vilify gun shows and their attendees as some sort of nefarious conspiracy intended to allow criminals access to firearms.

Provide the 'wording' of the law?

Explain how states like California are able to require and execute background checks on all gun show sales including 'private' sellers?

I respect you, but you are wrong on this topic.

California has a higher than average rate of gun crime despite the allegedly universal background checks the have.

I think that makes you wrong.

Are you C_Clayton_Jones? THAT is not even the question, but I am not surprised you don't understand.

But you are wrong about California...

Want a Better Gun Policy? Look at California

Griffin Dix, Ph.D.

After the recent mass shootings came mass confusion over how to prevent gun deaths. Calls for action ran to extremes. In despair some said murderers will always get weapons that are incredibly lethal; we are helpless against the gun lobby. Others called for banning all firearms. But there is a better way. California’s gun laws—while far from perfect—provide a model that works.

Since the peak firearm mortality rate in 1993 California has cut its firearm mortality rate by 53% — to a new low of 8.1 per 100,000 (according to the CDC’s latest 2009 data). That compares to a decline of only 30% in the rest of the nation, where the firearm mortality rate is 10.2 — far higher than California’s.

Before 1997 California’s firearm mortality rate was consistently higher than that of the rest of the nation. But as California’s gun laws took effect the state’s gun death rate dropped lower. Of course many factors besides gun laws affect firearm mortality rates. But gun laws help and California has passed more than forty of them since the 1989 assault weapon mass shooting in a Stockton schoolyard that led to the state’s assault weapons ban and a ten round limit on ammunition magazine capacity.

Other important California laws curb illegal gun trafficking by requiring background checks on all gun sales or transfers (including at gun shows) and limiting handgun purchases to one per month, prohibit gun purchases by persons guilty of certain violent misdemeanors, and facilitate crime gun tracing and recovery of illegally owned weapons.

Additional laws require licensing of gun dealers. In California handgun buyers must pass a written safety test and hands-on demonstration. Laws that encourage safe gun storage help reduce gun suicide, a major component of firearm mortality. New handgun models sold in California must meet state safety standards.

Americans overwhelmingly support measures like these, which do not interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens. Gun violence is a complex, multi-faceted problem with no easy fix. No wonder many are confused about how we can cut our gun death rate and protect our families. California’s gun laws are a model the rest of the country should look to in this hour of sorrow, confusion and much-needed discussion.

 

[Bfgrn]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

I am really disappointed. You have turned logic into an enemy and truth a menace. The reality is what we need to deal with, and how it affects We, the People. Instead, you choose to be a detached and pompous bystander.

 

[Dubya]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

How many times do you have to be told the term gun show loophole is defined? How can you deny a definition that you didn't create? It's as simple as this, this is what they are talking about, so why play ignorant and pretend what they are talking about doesn't exist? What they are talking about is defined by them and not by some ignorant motherfucker playing games.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Provide the 'wording' of the law?

Explain how states like California are able to require and execute background checks on all gun show sales including 'private' sellers?

I respect you, but you are wrong on this topic.

California has a higher than average rate of gun crime despite the allegedly universal background checks the have.

I think that makes you wrong.

Are you C_Clayton_Jones? THAT is not even the question, but I am not surprised you don't understand.

But you are wrong about California...

Want a Better Gun Policy? Look at California

Griffin Dix, Ph.D.

After the recent mass shootings came mass confusion over how to prevent gun deaths. Calls for action ran to extremes. In despair some said murderers will always get weapons that are incredibly lethal; we are helpless against the gun lobby. Others called for banning all firearms. But there is a better way. California’s gun laws—while far from perfect—provide a model that works.

Since the peak firearm mortality rate in 1993 California has cut its firearm mortality rate by 53% — to a new low of 8.1 per 100,000 (according to the CDC’s latest 2009 data). That compares to a decline of only 30% in the rest of the nation, where the firearm mortality rate is 10.2 — far higher than California’s.

Before 1997 California’s firearm mortality rate was consistently higher than that of the rest of the nation. But as California’s gun laws took effect the state’s gun death rate dropped lower. Of course many factors besides gun laws affect firearm mortality rates. But gun laws help and California has passed more than forty of them since the 1989 assault weapon mass shooting in a Stockton schoolyard that led to the state’s assault weapons ban and a ten round limit on ammunition magazine capacity.

Other important California laws curb illegal gun trafficking by requiring background checks on all gun sales or transfers (including at gun shows) and limiting handgun purchases to one per month, prohibit gun purchases by persons guilty of certain violent misdemeanors, and facilitate crime gun tracing and recovery of illegally owned weapons.

Additional laws require licensing of gun dealers. In California handgun buyers must pass a written safety test and hands-on demonstration. Laws that encourage safe gun storage help reduce gun suicide, a major component of firearm mortality. New handgun models sold in California must meet state safety standards.

Americans overwhelmingly support measures like these, which do not interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens. Gun violence is a complex, multi-faceted problem with no easy fix. No wonder many are confused about how we can cut our gun death rate and protect our families. California’s gun laws are a model the rest of the country should look to in this hour of sorrow, confusion and much-needed discussion.

I live in San Francisco, idiot, you can't tell me anything about California. There were three different shootings in this area today, one a double homicide that occurred during the news. Pretending that murder is the only possible gun crime in order to insist that gun laws work just helps me win the argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

How many times do you have to be told the term gun show loophole is defined? How can you deny a definition that you didn't create? It's as simple as this, this is what they are talking about, so why play ignorant and pretend what they are talking about doesn't exist? What they are talking about is defined by them and not by some ignorant motherfucker playing games.

In your world the definitive test is if something can be defined, do I have that right?

Must be nice to live in a world where there are dragons and unicorns.

Dragon - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Unicorn - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Bigfoot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[MeBelle]

Crime remains one of Oakland's most serious challenges, and Oakland continues to have a reputation among its own citizens, its understaffed police force, and residents of other Bay Area cities as a dangerous place, with one of the top five highest rates of violent crime in the U.S. According to Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts, during 2011 Oakland has averaged three street shootings per day, some of which cause injury or death to innocent bystanders.
Crime in Oakland, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More fun reading:

California Department of Justice - Criminal Justice Statistics Center - Office of the Attorney General

Interactive search:

StateMaster - Crime Statistics

 

[Lakhota]

Is this possible?

An unlicensed private buyer attends a large gun show - and buys every gun at the show (after passing background check) - and then turns around and sells those same guns to private unlicensed buyers (criminals and/or mentally unstable) who couldn't pass background checks - for twice or more than he paid for them.

 

[Dubya]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

How many times do you have to be told the term gun show loophole is defined? How can you deny a definition that you didn't create? It's as simple as this, this is what they are talking about, so why play ignorant and pretend what they are talking about doesn't exist? What they are talking about is defined by them and not by some ignorant motherfucker playing games.

In your world the definitive test is if something can be defined, do I have that right?

Must be nice to live in a world where there are dragons and unicorns.

Dragon - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Unicorn - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Bigfoot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Ignorant, Motherfucker, and yes you need the cap and maybe all caps. When someone defines something you can't be that motherfucking ignorant to say they can't express what they mean.

"Oh, I hear what you say, but I can't hear you, because I don't want to."

How ignorant is that and how childish do people have to become to behave like that?

The answer is Republicans.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

How many times do you have to be told the term gun show loophole is defined? How can you deny a definition that you didn't create? It's as simple as this, this is what they are talking about, so why play ignorant and pretend what they are talking about doesn't exist? What they are talking about is defined by them and not by some ignorant motherfucker playing games.

If I sell a gun on my own too a friend but isn't at a gun show is that a gun show loophole?

 

[Lakhota]

"Gun show loophole" is simply a "term" used to describe the “private sales” of guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere. It ain't rocket science...

Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence