The "Gun Show Loophole" and Other Myths

a reply to: Answer This post is extremely short on sources. It only sources the 1 form. I just scanned multiple sources and the ideas and studies have all different results.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Answer This post is extremely short on sources. It only sources the 1 form. I just scanned multiple sources and the ideas and studies have all different results.

Sources for what?

Ask specific questions and I will provide you with an unbiased source so you can get the real information.

You're finding different results because there's so much bias around this issue.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: EarthPilgrim

While the overall point of the article is true, the statistician in me is going to have to call the actual data into question. The charts indicate about a 4.5 per 100,000 rate of homicides related to a firearm. In order for that to be true, in a population of 310 million, there would need to be approximately 14,000 yearly homicides involving a firearm. Yet according to the FBI, there were less than 8,800, which equates to about 2.84 per 100,000.

Now, understand, I'm not attacking you personally, and I agree, this is still too high, but that I can't let that sneak by without a correction, because its a major error. And just to edit and add, I had initially thought that the author did that intentionally, but as I read further, I can see that they probably had a bad source.

I hear you Vor and I appreciate that you took the time to look it up.

I think this might be a case where different organizations may be reporting information differently or have varying levels of data?

PEW Research center states that in 2010 there were 11,078 homicides involving firearms in 2010 - according to them, they are taking information from death certificates.

www.pewsocialtrends.org...


I also checked the CDC.gov and they state in 2013, there were 33,636 deaths by firearms (I guess that this would encompass the entire spectrum, not just homicides) which they say is 10.6 per 100,000. I wonder if 4.5 per 100,000 stated in 2010 was overstated? Honestly, I can't say for sure either way and you may well be right.

www.cdc.gov...

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

Have to love the world of big data. haha.

a reply to: EarthPilgrim

Regarding that figure of 33,636, the biggest component there will be suicides, usually around 20,000 per year (plus another 20,000 that don't involve a firearm!).

It may well be that there are some differences in the data collection methods used by different government agencies that are leading to differing sets of numbers. Leave it to the government to be inconsistent. Regardless, the reason that it stood out to me is that most of the past data I've seen puts the number in the 9-10k range in recent years; that the CDC is claiming another 1,000-2,000 is going to have me searching down the source of the discrepancy.

a reply to: Answer

Wow.. in canada if you don't have a license (restricted or non-restricted) you can't buy a gun period.

Life is so much better and safer that way. Everyone must go through extensive training and background checks.

It cuts down on the looney bins from buying guns.

originally posted by: Answer
I've had to address this topic in several threads and, with election season upon us, I've seen the same old myths being thrown around about guns. I'd like to clarify a few things for the less-informed among the ATS membership.

1) The "Gun Show Loophole." What is it?

-The Gun Show Loophole is the supposed ability of a person to walk into a gun show and buy guns without a background check. The term and description is incredibly misleading and here's why:

I'll stick with the first and principle claim, rather than engage in laundry list debate...What do you think is happening in this undercover video?

a reply to: Answer

Great post addressing major points of contention between pro/anti gun factions. There's a lot of information available on each topic, but I highlighted a few with added input:

"We need back ground checks": every commercial purchase of a firearm requires a BC, filling out form 4773, a call to FBI's NICS, with a go/no go reply. Private transactions are that, and my home State of Washington recently enacted I594, requiring a BC on ALL gun purchases, and well beyond that. It is too soon to collate data on it's effects, but the initiative was hotly contested by gun owners as going overboard. Universal BCs would be ineffectual without a national registry, and that(registry) is a non-starter for many firearms owners.

"We need waiting periods": data can be found to support both sides of this topic, but a non-biased source cull the list down. Two stood out:
bearingarms.com...
www.cdc.gov...
Aside from an increase in suicides over 55 years, evidence supporting waiting periods have been found to be "inconsistent". I personally have nothing against a 3 day wait unless you have a valid concealed carry permit which should bypass this restriction. The only other point on this topic is there have been incidents where a victim of stalking/DV has sought to buy a gun for self defense, only to be murdered during the "waiting period".

Assault weapons/Mag Limits: Why target a modern sporting rifle, the best selling rifle in the country when it accounts for a very small percentage of overall murders? Is it because cosmetically it is similar to battle rifles used by armed forces? We had a national AWB and some states enacted AWBs, all with little impact on crime rates, as you pointed out. Facts as to the operation, capabilities and ROF have all been skewed and misrepresented by the media and agenda driven organizations to vilify the tool, with lawmakers regurgitating this misinformation to the media.

Finally, the cry for more gun laws can be heard after every high profile shooting. Even though we have thousands of local, state and national gun laws, some clamor for more. According to VP Biden, we don't have the time or manpower to go after felonious form 4773 filers(freedomoutpost.com...), but let's generate more legislation that we don't police. Soon as legislation is proposed that targets the true causes of mass shootings without penalizing law-biding gun owners, the sooner the dialogue can begin in earnest by both sides of the debate.

a reply to: Indigo5

Everything in those videos, at least to my understanding of the law, is already illegal. A private seller cannot be 'in the business' of buying and selling firearms with the express intent of turning a profit without a license. A licensed dealer must initiate background checks on all sales, regardless of location. And in all cases, whether as a licensed dealer or private individual, if you have reason to believe that the buyer cannot pass a background check, you are legally bound to terminate the sale.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Indigo5

Everything in those videos, at least to my understanding of the law, is already illegal. A private seller cannot be 'in the business' of buying and selling firearms with the express intent of turning a profit without a license. A licensed dealer must initiate background checks on all sales, regardless of location. And in all cases, whether as a licensed dealer or private individual, if you have reason to believe that the buyer cannot pass a background check, you are legally bound to terminate the sale.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

You're absolutely correct.

originally posted by: Indigo5

I'll stick with the first and principle claim, rather than engage in laundry list debate...What do you think is happening in this undercover video?

In both of those videos, the individuals are dealing without a license and that is illegal.

Section 923(a), Title 18, U.S.C., provides that no person shall engage in the business of dealing
in firearms until he has filed an application and received a license to do so. Section 922(a)(1),
Title 18, U.S.C., provides that it is unlawful for any person, other than a licensee, to engage in
the business of dealing in firearms. Licensees generally may not conduct business away from
their licensed premises.
The term “dealer” is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11)(A) to include any person engaged in the
business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail. The term “engaged in the business” as applied
to a dealer in firearms means a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in
firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and
profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. A dealer can be “engaged in the
business” without taking title to the firearms that are sold. However, the term does not include a
person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of
a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.

There are already laws against the supposed "gun show loophole" and they are clearly not being enforced. There is a big difference between a guy who wants to sell one or two of the guns in his collection and an unlicensed dealer who buys guns with the intent to sell.

originally posted by: Answer
I've had to address this topic in several threads and, with election season upon us, I've seen the same old myths being thrown around about guns. I'd like to clarify a few things for the less-informed among the ATS membership.

1) The "Gun Show Loophole." What is it?

-The Gun Show Loophole is the supposed ability of a person to walk into a gun show and buy guns without a background check. The term and description is incredibly misleading and here's why:

The folks who pay for a table at a gun show are licensed dealers 99.9% of the time. A non-licensed individual CAN pay for a table but they can only sell guns from their private collection and in over 15 years of attending and working at gun shows, I've seen 2 tables operated in this manner. Licensed dealers, whether at their store or at a gun show, MUST have paperwork and a background check on every sale.

If a non-licensed person is walking around the gun show with a firearm they wish to sell, and another non-licensed person wants to buy it, those individuals can do business just as they would in the parking lot or anywhere else for that matter. The fact that a person can walk into a gun show and buy a gun from an unlicensed person walking around the show is not a "loophole" any more than being able to buy a gun from someone who listed it in the newspaper classifieds is a "loophole."

2) We need background checks!

-Some people seem to think that anyone can walk into a gun store, buy a gun like they're buying a sandwich, and walk out. They claim that background checks would stop mentally ill people from getting guns.

All licensed dealers must do a number of things when selling a gun. First, they use their judgement to determine the character of the buyer. Second, they must see a valid government-issued photo ID. Third, they have the buyer fill out a legal document that asks the following questions: Click me. Fourth, they use a phone or the internet to access the FBI National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) and, after inputting the buyer's information, the dealer will receiver a status of "Approved, Delayed, or Denied." States are notoriously bad at reporting dangerous mental cases to the system so the checks are not effective at stopping sales to those individuals.

3) We need waiting periods!

-Some people think that waiting periods would keep unstable people from committing murder.

Several states have waiting periods and there is no evidence that those requirements have any effect on crime. There was a federal waiting period for 4 years and it had no effect on crime rates which is why it was discontinued. Since mass shootings are the cases that people seem most worried about, there is no evidence that most of those shooters bought their guns immediately before the shooting so a waiting period would not have made a difference. The vast majority of shootings don't occur immediately after the criminal purchased the gun so waiting periods would accomplish little more than leaving people defenseless who have an urgent need for protection (people who've been threatened, abused women scared of their abuser, etc.)

4)"Assault weapons" should be banned!

-Semi-automatic military style rifles have been at the forefront of the push for more gun laws. Many politicians want to ban these types of rifles outright because "they're made for killing people."

Even though this type of firearm is one of the most popular in the US, they account for a statistically insignificant number of murders. They are used in some highly-publicized mass shootings, which is why they're demonized. These types of rifles are used for home defense, hunting, sport, competition, and collecting. The majority of murders are committed with handguns because they are easily transported and concealed. The Assault Weapons Ban spanned from 1994 to 2004 and the ban had no noticeable effect on crime rates or the number of mass shootings.

5)We need magazine capacity limits.

-High capacity magazines are often demonized because "the shooter can do a lot of damage before they have to reload."

High capacity magazines were banned by the Assault Weapons Ban and, again, that ban didn't affect crime or mass shootings. They are currently banned in several states but those states haven't seen an effect on murder rates. High capacity magazines are what the firearm manufacturers typically design their guns around. The larger capacity is used for sport shooting, target shooting, competitions, and useful for defensive purposes.

6) We need a registry of firearms.

-The belief is that having all firearms registered would reduce the ability of criminals to get guns.

Some states require registration and/or purchase permits for firearms. Those states haven't seen an effect on murder rates and a vast number of firearms go unregistered proving that the system is ineffective.




The point of this thread is to educate people about areas of the current gun laws about which they are unfamiliar. I've seen a lot of people calling for laws that are already on the books. The anti gun propaganda would have you believe that firearms are not regulated at all and if only there were more restrictions, the problems would go away. They never mention the failures of current and past laws to have the desired effect.

What we need are harsher punishments for criminals who use guns or possess them illegally. The current laws are ineffective primarily because the legal system is ineffective. More laws will only affect law-abiding citizens as long as the actual criminals aren't punished accordingly.

The "Gun show loophole" as you call it being false because "99.9% are gun dealers" sure as hell doesn't apply in Montana or Idaho, I promise you. And it sure as hell doesn't apply on the island of Maui. The two places I live year-round. Period.

"Gun Shows" are year round here are CONSTANT and it is a usually just a dude at a folding table, or on the tailgate of his pick-up

Where did you get the "99.9% are gun dealers" statistic from? Can you please cite an official link?

Everyone that supports gun control, hold up your hand. let's see, there is Hillary, Obama, Stalin, Bill Clinton, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao...

So, Leonidas, you belong on the list with Bill and Hillary???

The U.S.'s obsession with firearms / death-dealing weapons stems from a 'culture' of war and conquest, endemic insecurity and distrust, and phallic worship.

Until the U.S. can confront, reconcile and embrace the reality of their odious past, the ingravescent state of perpetual fear the nation exists in and their misogynistic, overt homophobia-dissemble latent homosexual predisposition, they will forever be mired in a 'wild west' society and intellectually retarded by a 'Yosemite' mentality.

And now, a word from your president:

Thank you for exploding the most common gun control myths. The gun-show loophole is believed by many people, who, of course, don't go to gun-shows. The waiting period was the result of some highly-publisized cases where someone bought a gun, and immediately went home and shot his wife. That is actually quite rare, but they passed it to stop those few incidents. The assault weapon ban didn't make a difference. Neither did restricted magazines. In the terrible Sandy Hook mass shooting, no more than 12 rounds were fired before he put in another magazine. Yes, we have background checks, and they work the way they're supposed to. But whatever laws there are, criminals don't obey them.
a reply to: Answer

a reply to: AlexJowls

Wow, so many big words. I'm very impressed.

I know that after having read that I'm supposed to now just jump up and turn my guns, or is it phallic symbols, into paperweights...but just can't seem to muster the want to.

I am curious, however, about one thing...

How does owning a gun, or several, make me misogynistic? Or homophobic? Or intellectually retarded, for that matter...

...and is a woman who owns a gun misogynistic, too? If that's true, I foresee some very interesting conversations in my immediate future.

Oh, and I believe you mean "Yosemite Sam" mentality...

For you, and hey, it's the Wild West, too... How cool!!

Pardon me, but I'm going to get nerdy here.

The gun control debate is was perfectly summarized, metaphorically, in Marvel Comics. The whole Civil War story line is essentially about the gun control debate.

Powers exist. Certain people in government want people with powers to be registered. The community of people with powers is divided, between what they see as a civil responsibility and their own right to freedom.

Eventually, to put it in the most simplistic terms, the side of registration won, ending with the death of Captain America. Heavy handed symbolism to say the least.

Over-regulation never ends well. Hell it led to Green Goblin being president. In order to stymie gun violence we need to reach to the roots, teach people responsibility, teach a general reverence for life. We need to recognize and support those with mental health issues. We need to start giving a damn about each other. Televangelists and conservative hucksters have made sure that we fear each other, that there will never be any more mutual respect due to imaginary ideological lines drawn in the sand. It doesn't help that our most popular religions say that you can do whatever you want, and you only need to ask forgiveness to make it all right.

In other words, we wouldn't need any of this gun control crap if people just decided to stop being self important dicks and actually cared more for what is going on around them.

originally posted by: daveinats
So, Leonidas, you belong on the list with Bill and Hillary???

Why? Do they live here too? Or is it because they buy firearms privately direct from other citizens? What is your point, exactly?

What list are we on together?

a reply to: Answer

Speaking of statistics, what do you make of this?

Innocents Lost