gun show loophole rant

Sorry just need to vent a little.......So I'm watchin the news and I see some retarded chick on there talking about how we need to close the "gun show loophole" and I pretty much wanted to punch my TV......Now, I'm no gun nut but I do own multiple guns and enjoy shooting.......What "closing the gun show loophole" is code for is Making person to person sales of firearms illegal...this is really the only way to close the gun show loophole.....

For those of you not familiar with gun shows or how guns are bought and sold.......When you go to a gun shop they will have a FFL(federal firearms license)....This means every gun they sell you must first fill out a 4473 form. This is to make sure it is legal for you to own a gun. In most cases the gun shop will tell you right away whether or not you are approved becasue its done electronically. Then Of course if you are buying a hand gun their will be a waiting period(Brady Bill). Every gun shop or pawn shop has a FFL this FFL allows them to buy straight from the manufacture.....Without a FFL you cant buy wholesale......and as anyone knows you wont be in business for long if you are buying and selling at retail. That covers the most common way firearms are bought....The other way and less common but still happens a lot is...You buy from another person....like if you neighbor or friend had a gun he was looking to sell or trade to you....this is perfectly legal and no paperwork is required to make the transaction....Although you can send in paperwork to your state when this transaction is made but this is voluntary....In some states(new york) you are required to have all guns registered but in most states you are not.

So basically what happens at a gun show?....90% of the booths/tables set up at a gun show are venders who sell guns for a living and most of them also own a brick and mortar shop, so they have and FFL. If you buy any firearms from them by law you will have to fill out a 4473....But some booths/tables are set up by just some guy who is looking to offload some of his guns...In this case no 4473 is required becasue the guy selling doesn't have an FFL. And at most gun show...there will be people in the parking lot or walking around the gun show holding signs of what they are trying to sell...as they know people are their to buy guns...Although the people putting on the gun show frown on this becasue why pay for a booth if you can just sit in the parking lot with a sign.

In my own personal experience...I have sold guns to people I dont know...friends of friends. there is a form you can get at your local sheriff station...the form is voluntary like I said before but if I'm selling a gun to someone whether I know them or not I sending in the form to the state so they know I no longer own that gun(serial number). I have also bought guns off people I dont know at a gun show(in the parking lot) and got totally burned...I went to register it a couple of days later and the sheriff took it as the serial number came back stolen...this is the risk you take buying from someone without a FFL. Now If I was one of those guys who never registers his guns(which you dont have to by law except is some states but only like 2 I think) becasue he doesn't what the goverment to know he has them<rolling eyes> I would have never know I was in possession of a stolen gun.....Of course I register my guns that the only way I will ever get them back if they are stolen...Just like the guy got his stolen gun back when I went to register it....Sucks becasue it was a really nice 1911 and I paid 650 for it...

So basically the only way to close the "gun show loophole" is to make person to person sales illegal.....why cant these people just come out and say what they are really trying to do? Why do they need to hide behind some code phrase like "close gun show loopholes"? bunch of BS if you ask me!!!!!!

Quote: vert1276

.....Now, I'm no gun nut but I do own multiple guns and enjoy shooting...

Speaking to that, I just bought a Browning 12ga pump shotgun last weekend. Its an awesome weapon, very lightweight and works like a Swiss watch. Got enough hand guns.. Naw, I'm lying, you can never have enough hand guns.

That looks like an autoloader to me, not a pump, just sayin'.

I saw an ad on TV complaining about "gun show loopholes". It stated that anybody could walk into one and walk out with a fully automatic weapon! Why do groups like that find it necessary to lie to promote their agenda?

Quote: vert1276

So basically the only way to close the "gun show loophole" is to make person to person sales illegal.....why cant these people just come out and say what they are really trying to do? Why do they need to hide behind some code phrase like "close gun show loopholes"? bunch of BS if you ask me!!!!!!

Perhaps the talking head was as mis-informed as I am as to what "Gun show loophole" means.

I had always believed that it meant that, because of the temporary nature of a show location, that the vendors were able to get around the paperwork and waiting periods.

Thanks for explaining it. If it's as you described (and I have no reason to doubt you), then I'll agree that the name should be changed, and that the "Private Sale Loophole" should be closed.

Of course, it would be simple to ignore such a rule requiring registration of private sales. But at least you could go back and complain that you were sold a stolen gun, and that the seller would have known that if he had obeyed the law and filed the paperwork when he bought it. Granted, that wouldn't do much good if you're buying from a stranger in a parking lot....

Perhaps the solution is for the gun show promoter to embrace the parking lot sales, and to act as a middle man for the paperwork. I.E. Have someone licensed cruise the parking lot. For every gun sold in the parking lot, the vendor (or customer) pays that licensee a relatively small fee to get the form filed electronically on the spot, so you know it isn't stolen.

Quote: Alan

That looks like an autoloader to me, not a pump, just sayin'.

You're right. Here's a pic of the pump.



They look very similar and I was not paying much attention..

Next time you're talking to someone who insists on closing the "gun show loophole", mention to them that you are more in favor of closing the "big box store bullet loophole". When asked, explain that it's the loophole that allows anybody, literally anybody, young, old, criminal record or not, walk into a Wal-Mart, purchase a box of bullets, then go steal a gun, and use the combination to kill people.

If they say that's ridiculous, let them know how ridiculous it is to call it a "gun show loophole". On the other hand, if they agree with you, simply shake your head, walk away, and never talk to that person again.

I'm all for gun show loopholes. Jesus knows that Muslim terrorists have to get armed somehow!

Don't you need a good loophole to fire through when under siege?

Quick correction, vert, NY doesn't (yet) require registration of ALL guns. Shotguns and hunting rifles can still be owned by unlicensed adults without registration. Currently only pistols and quasi-assault rifles (semi auto versions of M-10 / M-16 / AR- / etc) are required to be registered. They've (NY) tried to mandate registration of all guns (even .22SR's) but it has so far failed.

Having not seen the show that sent you off, I'm lost on what the point was. Person to person sales are somehow dangerous, maybe? Gunshows promote criminal activity? I don't know, but I can't connect the dots. It seems like a half-baked idea that someone with little knowledge thinks is a panacea, but in reality, will hardly make a dent while at the same time hurting upstanding individual's freedom. I'd be pissed too if I wanted to sell a gun and couldn't because of some misguided do-gooder. Close the improperly named "gun-show loophole" and a thug will just get one elsewhere. It solves nothing.

I haven't seen the specific show either, but I've seen similar shows. And, thanks to the info in the original post, I have a better understanding of the process and the real problem.

Quote: Face

Person to person sales are somehow dangerous, maybe?

Only if the buyer shouldn't be owning a gun.

Quote: Face

Gunshows promote criminal activity?

No, but it does advertise that guns are available. Anyone who knows anything about gun shows, or shows of any type, knows that side / shady deals can be made with people whom you would never knew existed had it not been for the show.

Quote: Face

Close the improperly named "gun-show loophole" and a thug will just get one elsewhere. It solves nothing.

True, but it's a step in the - supposed - right direction.

So what I think I hear you saying is that a convicted felon or a terrorist on an international watch list can walk into a gun show and buy literally a truck load of guns with no questions asked and no paper trail as they would not be required to even show any form of identification? And this is considered a good thing?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I haven't seen the specific show either, but I've seen similar shows. And, thanks to the info in the original post, I have a better understanding of the process and the real problem.

Only if the buyer shouldn't be owning a gun.

No, but it does advertise that guns are available. Anyone who knows anything about gun shows, or shows of any type, knows that side / shady deals can be made with people whom you would never knew existed had it not been for the show.

True, but it's a step in the - supposed - right direction.

DJ I can kinda see what you are tying to get at with your posts on this thread......If every gun had a title like a car does and when you bought a a gun from someone you had to go register it to get a new title(exactly like you do with a car now) I would clear things up and there would be no need to close the "gun show loophole" becasue there would be no loophole of anonymous gun sales.

Would I be for this? Hmm I dont know really...I'm not an NRA nut that thinks NO guns should ever have to be registered becasue "I shouldn't have to let the goverment know how many and what guns I own...becasue if the laws change I dont want the goverment having a list of people to go round up guns from" But let me tell you there would be a lot of resistance to law like this......A lot of people love the fact that the own guns and the goverment doesn't know....Like I said I would never own a gun that wasn't registered...only for the reason if it was ever stolen, there would be pretty much no chance of me ever getting it back if it wasn't registered.

But just a FYI on how dumb states and the federal goverment are with gun ownership now?......The 4473 form you fill out when buying a gun from someone with and FFL......Its a 4 part form....One copy stays with the gun shop for their records....One copy goes to the federal goverment(ATF im thinking but not sure) One copy goes to the state..and one copy goes to the guy buying the gun.......So now BOTH the state and the federal goverment have a copy of a document of who bought the gun....DO you think this goes into some sort of data base? NOPE...they just get filed away.....LMAO.....When a gun is recovered in a crime what do the police do?....First they check with the sheriffs department to see if the gun is registered if not....the call the gun manufacture(smith and wesson for example)....Give them the serial number and ask what FFL the gun was sold too.....then they go to the FFL and ask him to pull his rerecords as to who he sold it too......talk about a cluster f#ck LOL

Why a gun is not automatically register to the person who buys it is beyond me? The State and the Feds have the document sent to them by the FFL......maybe because they dont know for sure the person buying is going to keep it......maybe he or she is giving it as a gift? who knows...lol it will remain a mystery lol

Quote: kp

So what I think I hear you saying is that a convicted felon or a terrorist on an international watch list can walk into a gun show and buy literally a truck load of guns with no questions asked and no paper trail as they would not be required to even show any form of identification? And this is considered a good thing?

Do you really think the terrorist or criminal needs to go to gun show seek out the 3 or 4 people there with booths that dont have an FFL and buy from them to get guns? This is just a red herring....The real point of closing the gun show loophole is to further restrict the ownership and selling and buy of guns....Its nothing more than that

Quote: kp

So what I think I hear you saying is that a convicted felon or a terrorist on an international watch list can walk into a gun show and buy literally a truck load of guns with no questions asked and no paper trail as they would not be required to even show any form of identification? And this is considered a good thing?

Depends, kp. From the dealers signed up at the show, no. They're legit and have to do the whole song and dance of checking into the person. If it's just some dude selling, then yes, but the fact that it's "at a gun show" has no bearing. That dude could just do the same thing at his house, or anywhere. And say you do make P2P gun sales illegal. Would you think a felon / terrorist / goon would think "gee, I better not do that then"? No, they'd do it anyways, just not in such an obvious fashion. Weed's illegal, think it's hard to buy some at a Tragically Hip concert? Same thing. So like so many other laws of this type, there would be a negligible effect on crime while totally wiping out the freedoms of the honest guys. I'm pro-gun yet still open and eager for preventing illegal gun usage, but I think most of the "fixes" are asinine at best.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

No, but it does advertise that guns are available. Anyone who knows anything about gun shows, or shows of any type, knows that side / shady deals can be made with people whom you would never knew existed had it not been for the show.

Answered above. Maybe the obvious signage and on site deals would be eliminated, but the whispered offers and off site transactions would live on.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

True, but it's a step in the - supposed - right direction.

Again, I'll support the idea of keeping guns away from those who should not have them, but not at the expense of my own personal freedoms. Show me a plan that works i.e. an actual positive effect with minimal loss of freedom, and I'm on board. Until then, you (not DJ you) can kiss my grits.

Sorry, I just pulled my gun in fear for the first time ever 2 days ago, so I'm somewhat attached to my privilege. More so than usual. I'm just tired of the "See?!" type of spin. If you want it fixed, it's gonna take more work than pointing out a flaw and simply tacking a "dont do that" bandaid over it.

“You are talking to a guy who talks to more gun owners in more heated and concerned conversations than anyone who lives. These are top notch heroes of law enforcement and military who understand this experiment in self-government and we will not let gun confiscation happen." Ted Nugent on the idiocy of what Obama is trying to do with guns. There will be a 2nd revolution in this country if these clueless Nazi's try and take our guns away. Drudge had the perfect headline on his site yesterday. Side by side portraits of Hitler and Stalin.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Hmmmm. I don't see the word "gun" or "firearm" but I see "well regulated." I'll concede your right to the gun if you concede me my Constitutionally granted right to the regulation.

Quote: FarFromVegas

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hmmmm. I don't see the word "gun" or "firearm"

Thats right, parse the Constitution all you like. The fact is,
depending on what poll you read, 75% to 80% of the
American public wants the right to own a gun if they like,
as it says is their right in the Constitution. Keep screwing
with all this talk of confiscation, and the mid term election
will elect a Republican house AND Senate and Obama can
sit on his hands till he permanently resides in HI.

Quote: EvenBob

Keep screwing with all this talk of confiscation, and the mid term election will elect a Republican house AND Senate.

I just want to remember this prediction in 2014.

Quote: Wizard

I just want to remember this prediction in 2014.

Ah, but it hasn't happened yet. All they do is talk right
now. Its if they do try and come after our guns, or so
tighten the reg's on ammo that its impossible to buy.
Talk is meaningless, its if they actually are stupid enough
to take action, thats when the mid terms will be a
referendum on how we feel. Nobody remembers the talk,
the Libs are always bloviating on gun control. Its the
action nobody will forget.

Quote: EvenBob

You're right. Here's a pic of the pump.



They look very similar and I was not paying much attention..

Holy crap! I found evidence that EvenBob admitted he was wrong! I think that's a first, I wasn't around when this was originally posted.

Quote: EvenBob

75% to 80% of the
American public wants the right to own a gun if they like

Is that an official poll from Rasmussen?

Quote: EvenBob

.. and Obama can
sit on his hands till he permanently resides in HI.

Wasn't he supposed to move to Hawaii already? I seem to remember someone saying that Obama was house hunting in Hawaii because he knew that he was going to lose the election.

How did that turn out?

Quote: FarFromVegas

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Hmmmm. I don't see the word "gun" or "firearm" but I see "well regulated." I'll concede your right to the gun if you concede me my Constitutionally granted right to the regulation.

Quote: Beethoven9th

but you've gotta come up with a better argument than this. 'Well regulated' .

Nope, its worked for 230 years or so, and it still works
just fine. Some gun shops have posters similar to this
one hanging in their stores and the customers get a
big kick out of it.

Quote: EvenBob

Nope, its worked for 230 years or so, and it still works
just fine. Some gun shops have posters similar to this
one hanging in their stores and the customers get a
big kick out of it.

For what it's worth.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),

Quote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[157]

-Justice Antonin Scalia from the Majority opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Quote: rxwine

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on... laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[157]

-Justice Antonin Scalia from the Majority opinion

Exactly! Every single time it goes before the Supreme Court,
they find nothing in the 2nd amendment that can be tossed
out as wrong or archaic. Thank god..

well since my old thread has been "sparked" back up again.....for what its worth the "gun show loophole" will be going away by executive order you can bet on that....Right now it is against the law to privately sell on a gun on the property of a FFL holder.....Meaning if you go to a gun shop to sell/trade your gun...or pawn shop that is a FFL holder(and of course they would be if you are going there to sell your gun) on the property you can ONLY sell it to them and no one else...SO if they don't want to buy it or you don't like the price they are willing to pay...You can't just sell it to another costumer standing there who wants it....That is currently against federal law....

So since 95% of "booths" set up at gun shows are FFL holders....there will be an executive order passed ruling that you can no longer make private sales on the property of a gun show...

and FarFromVegas's argument about the second amendment....LOL dude I lost brain cells reading that....Come on you were not serious when you made that post were you?

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” (RELATED: Levin: If Obama sidesteps Congress on debt ceiling, ‘no choice’ but impeachment)

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/#ixzz2I20YCi6k

I do so love 2nd terms of Dem's. The last one WAS impeached.
This is looking very very good. The 2nd term of a Dem before
Clinton was, well, hmmm. Not Carter. Not Johnson. Not Kennedy.
Not Truman. Wow, you have to go back almost 70 years to
find a Dem that was elected to 2 terms. Truman and Johnson
were only elected to 1 term, weren't they.

Quote: Wizard

I just want to remember this prediction in 2014.

Why bother? He'll just run away like he did last time and then he'll return and pretend nothing happened but will continue making ridiculous predictions that he won't have the guts to own up to.

Quote: EvenBob

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” (RELATED: Levin: If Obama sidesteps Congress on debt ceiling, ‘no choice’ but impeachment)



I do so love 2nd terms of Dem's. The last one WAS impeached.
This is looking very very good. The 2nd term of a Dem before
Clinton was, well, hmmm. Not Carter. Not Johnson. Not Kennedy.
Not Truman. Wow, you have to go back almost 70 years to
find a Dem that was elected to 2 terms. Truman and Johnson
were only elected to 1 term, weren't they.

Enjoy loving that DEMOCRAT 2ND TERM because it sure ain't a Romney 1st term. Thanks for the laughs, LOSER!

Does anybody actually believe that the feds could take away their guns? If they take away you gun/guns I'm guessing that's your fault. Just how would they take them away? The gun debate is silly at best.

So this "new" poster makes 3 posts all attacking EB. Investigation by the Mods please!

Quote: stevenz

Enjoy loving that DEMOCRAT 2ND TERM because it sure ain't a Romney 1st term. Thanks for the laughs, ...

I'm looking forward to Obama's impeachment. If it goes only half as well for Obama as it did for Clinton, then we'll have a Democratically controlled house in 2015.

IMPEACH!!!!!!!

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm looking forward to Obama's impeachment. If it goes only half as well for Obama as it did for Clinton, then we'll have a Democratically controlled house in 2015.

IMPEACH!!!!!!!

Almost impossible anymore as there are very few districts left that are in the middle. The GOP set themselves up good in the last redistricting. The liberals would have to run the table in contested seats to take control. So the last 2 years will be lame duck to the max.

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm looking forward to Obama's impeachment. If it goes only half as well for Obama as it did for Clinton, then we'll have a Democratically controlled house in 2015.

IMPEACH!!!!!!!

Like the democrat house, senate, and potus we ended up with in 2000?

Quote: treetopbuddy

Does anybody actually believe that the feds could take away their guns? If they take away you gun/guns I'm guessing that's your fault. Just how would they take them away? The gun debate is silly at best.

Heck yeah I believe it. Already I have to buy a health insurance plan or go to prison. Obama's ag is I favor of confiscation. Get a lib politician talking and they will say they favor confiscation. Only a fool WOULDN'T take a threat of confiscation serious.

I can't figure out why the a democrats would try this. It's like a right-wing socio-conservative pontificating on abortion.

I keep telling my friends out of the US that telling the states to 'ban' guns is like the US telling the Scots to stop deep frying food or the French to give up the red wine. But more so. It's a core part of the American identity and culture. And it's up to the US to decide how they want to have their culture and identity. banning does work. I can understand changes in licensing, or various control changes, or ownership documentation (and I understand the objection to that too, have less sympathy, but again, my opinion doesn't matter) but removal of the gun from the hands of the private citizen... I don't see that flying in the US.

Quote: AZDuffman

Heck yeah I believe it. Already I have to buy a health insurance plan or go to prison. Obama's ag is I favor of confiscation. Get a lib politician talking and they will say they favor confiscation. Only a fool WOULDN'T take a threat of confiscation serious.

They've been trying to do it for 40 years. Its just
too dangerous politically. American's love their
guns. My friend went to a gun show last week
and there were almost no guns left by the time
he got there, and zero ammo. I hope they go for
as much gun control as they can get, its the political
gift that keeps on giving for mid term elections.

Canada allows guns as well. They are just very well restricted and licensed. For example, if you want to buy a gun, in Canada, you must:

(1) complete a firearms safety course or courses.
(2) apply for a license
(3) undergo security screening and a 28 day waiting period

Licenses expire every five years and must be renewed. You must also retake courses.

There are also restrictions on ammunication and the types of gun you can own. There are restrictions on transporting your firearm, and the list goes on and on. There are restrictions on gun storage (they must be unloaded, the bolt or bolt-carriers removed, and locked in a cabinet or room)

These laws do not contravene 2nd amendment rights (if we had them). Certainly, they make gun ownership more difficult, and you are restricted from the types of guns you buy, and you are restricted from walking around the streets with them.

I don't have a problem with gun laws that make the community safer. Don't take away the guns. Just make them harder to use, and start restricting the types of guns and ammunition that can be sold.

Quote: boymimbo

Canada allows guns as well. They are just very well restricted and licensed. For example, if you want to buy a gun, in Canada, you must:

(1) complete a firearms safety course or courses.
(2) apply for a license
(3) undergo security screening and a 28 day waiting period

Licenses expire every five years and must be renewed. You must also retake courses.

There are also restrictions on ammunication and the types of gun you can own. There are restrictions on transporting your firearm, and the list goes on and on. There are restrictions on gun storage (they must be unloaded, the bolt or bolt-carriers removed, and locked in a cabinet or room)

These laws do not contravene 2nd amendment rights (if we had them). Certainly, they make gun ownership more difficult, and you are restricted from the types of guns you buy, and you are restricted from walking around the streets with them.

I don't have a problem with gun laws that make the community safer. Don't take away the guns. Just make them harder to use, and start restricting the types of guns and ammunition that can be sold.

The problem is restrictions just take away rights from law abiding people. We already have laws against guns in so-cled school zones and look how that worked out. Murder is already illegal as is simply shooting someone intentionally. We don't need draconian gun laws. We need leadership that encourages society to behave better instead of promising handout after handout.

Quote: DeMango

So this "new" poster makes 3 posts all attacking EB. Investigation by the Mods please!

What about my 1st Amendment rights to free speech? You're all so keen on protecting the 2nd Amendment here, how about the 1st? Investigate me? How about investigating where he disappeared to for a month and why he should be allowed to pretend that nothing ever happened? He spent months bullying everyone with his opinions (sorry, 'facts') and hasn't had the courage to man up and apologise or acknowledge all his wrong predictions. Find the single comment or thread he has responded to since he came back. You won't find it because it ain't there. He's too gutless to man up. Investigate away. Ban me. He'll still be spewing his bull because he knows you'll let him off.

Quote: AZDuffman

The problem is restrictions just take away rights from law abiding people. We already have laws against guns in so-cled school zones and look how that worked out. Murder is already illegal as is simply shooting someone intentionally. We don't need draconian gun laws. We need leadership that encourages society to behave better instead of promising handout after handout.

Agreed. All restrictions do is keep honest people honest. Dishonest people intent on causing harm couldn't care less about laws; otherwise Piers Morgan wouldn't have had anything to say the past month because no crimes would have ever been committed because they were against the law to begin with.

If you have ever been to a gun show, you will quickly realize it is one of the safest places you can be. The OP is correct in that most "booth vendors" at gun shows are FFL's and if you buy a gun from them, you will need to pass the background check and if need be, wait the appropriate amount of time to get your weapon.

I don't know the law in other states, but in Ohio, an individual can only sell to another individual if the buyer is a resident of Ohio. The sellers obligation is to see a valid Ohio ID, and not be under the opinion the buyer is either making plans to use the gun illegally, or cannot legally own it in the first place (due to criminal or mental history.) So if I want to sell a long gun or pisol to another individual in Ohio and he tells me during normal conversation he just got out of the loonie bin, or just got out of jail, or how he can't wait to run into the guy who is F-ing his wife now that he has a gun, I now cannot legally sell him the gun. The parties also both have to be of age which in Ohio is 18 for long guns, and 21 for pistols.

As an Ohio resident I can also only sell so many guns to other individuals in a calendar year. I do not know the number as I am not in the business or hobby of selling guns, but if I sell say, more than 10 guns a year, I must apply to the ATF for an FFL (Federal Firearms License).

How either of these is enforced is probably very loose, just like catching speeders on the freeway is a very loose proposition. There have definitely been stings where cops troll a gun show or armslist.com looking to catch either bad guys, or unknowing good guys. All an undercover cop would have to say is something like I listed above and if you go through with the transaction, you committed a crime.

I can also sell any gun to someone out of state, but we would have to use an intermediary FFL to complete the transaction. I am not really familiar why this is, but it has to do with inter-state commerce and the ATF so I am told.

"Leadership that encourages society to behave better"... bull.

What does that mean? It's a flimsy argument. Gun homocides decreased from 14,981 in 1993 to about 7,985 in 2000. Who was president then? Clinton. Under Reagan it was stable. Under Bush Sr. it went up from 9,375 in 1988 to 13,158 in 1992. And the rates under Obama are also increasing.

So I'll argue that it's not the leadership that determines the gun homocide rate.

There's a pretty direct relationship between gun deaths/capita and gun ownership per capita. You can take a look at the chart here.

The United States has the 2nd highest firearms suicide rate, in the world.

From these two items alone, there is a direct link between gun ownership and gun death. Duh.

Restrictions don't take rights away from law-abiding people. It certainly makes it more difficult to exercise one's rights, but it doesn't take it away. It's just like smoking. Smoking isn't illegal. You just can't do it at work, in public buildings, within a certain distance of a public place, in beaches (in some places), in cars (in some places), and so on. Gun ownership shouldn't be illegal either pursuant to the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd amendment isn't in contravention with restrictions on the type of arms one can own, the bullets one can buy, the magazines that the guns have, how the firearm must be stowed or kept unloaded, and how the gun must not be concealed or carried.

Quote: Maverick17

Agreed. All restrictions do is keep honest people honest. Dishonest people intent on causing harm couldn't care less about laws; otherwise Piers Morgan wouldn't have had anything to say the past month because no crimes would have ever been committed because they were against the law to begin with.

The availability to get a weapon is a huge factor though in homocides. The Sandy Hook murder was from legal weapons that the kid had been trained to use, by his mother. The fact that he didn't have a permit to use the guns was not a motivating factor. However, had the mother (who was sane) been under a law to lock up weapons and keep them unloaded, perhaps the kid wouldn't have known where the key was for the weapons or the ammo, and wouldn't have been able to pull off what he was intending to do.

Murders here in Canada with handguns generally happen with weapons procured illegally in the United States or that are stored in homes in Canada. It's fairly easy for criminals in the US to obtain weapons because there is a ready supply (people's homes) to get the weapons from.

I don't have a problem either with the 2nd amendment. You have to live with it. Just accept that from time to time, there will be mass murders from gun violence. That has to be an acceptable consequence of gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.

Quote: EvenBob
75% to 80% of the
American public wants the right to own a gun if they like

Quote: s2dbaker
Is that an official poll from Rasmussen?

Quote: EvenBob
.. and Obama can
sit on his hands till he permanently resides in HI.

Quote: s2dbaker
Wasn't he supposed to move to Hawaii already? I seem to remember someone saying that Obama was house hunting in Hawaii because he knew that he was going to lose the election.

How did that turn out?


Taking the words of the ill-informed or far reaching "gun nuts" (and I am not putting EB in either category, but the fact/opinion EB said Romney would win/Obama would lose makes no difference in a conversation on gun rights) is sensationalizing at best, and criminal at worst.


Showing a Youtube clip of some jacked up nutjob saying he is willing to fire the first round in a civil war if someone even attempts to take away his gun rights, or putting a well known whack-job on your TV show knowing full well it will take 13 seconds to send it off into la-la land and make anyone who ever even looked at a gun appear to be criminal is childish.

Piers Morgan had a Marine with no public speaking experience who wrote Piers an email on his show for an interview. The Marine was direct, factual, honest, and did not attempt to spin or angle his way to convince Piers of his views, and Piers could not speak conversationally with the man.

My wet dream is for Charlton Heston to be resurrected either by a miracle of the spiritual kind or a miracle of the Tupac Shakur hologram kind, and put Piers in his place.

Quote: boymimbo

The United States has the 2nd highest firearms suicide rate, in the world.

My guess is fisherman have the highest rate of drowning on the job, what's your point?

Your quote is supposing that if a gun were not available that suicidal person would not have used a knife, or a bottle of pills, or his/her own car off a cliff, and that is an unfair assumption.

It is similar to the question/statement commonly asked by the media: "If even one child's life could be saved with the confiscation of every gun in America, we should do it/would you agree we should do it?"

I would love to hear the response "If quadrupling the amount of legally owned firearms would save even one child's life we should do it/would you agree we should do it?"

“Hot” burglaries (the act of burglarizing a home with the residents in the home at the time of the crime) are much higher in highly regulated gun countries. Violent crime is higher per capita in developed countries with gun control laws than those with more forward thinking gun rights countries.

Look at Chicago as an example. Crime has never been worse, yet Chicago is one of the most stringent gun control cities in America.

Dang those guns. This just happened yesterday:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183760/two-robbers-shot-dead-in-hollywood.html

http://www.kens5.com/news/SAPD-Car-thief-killed-another-wounded-outside-Stone-Oak-home-186923501.html

Piers Morgan is otherwise known as Piers Moron. He's a little toad of a man, shipped out of the UK for multiple failures as a journalist and as an editor. I have a low opinion of any show or channel that pays him money, as their judgement must be flawed to give him a job.