Guns in America

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

Those guns come from somewhere, and are purchased legally before they cross over to the illegal resale market. I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

A gun show is a sales event put on by a reputable production company. They sell table space to gun dealers, and charge admission to the public. Every gun show I have ever heard of requires that vendors are federally licensed gun dealers who rigorously conform to and comply with all state and federal laws.

To purchase a gun at a gun show from a vendor, you must pass federal and state guidelines. The federal requirement is a real-time check of your ID against the federal criminal database. Some states require a locally issued purchase permit, either for all guns or just for hand guns. The feds waive their check if you have a state permit. There is no other way to purchase a gun from a vendor at a gun show.

Often private citizens take guns to a gun show to offer them for sale to the gun dealers. It sometimes happens that an individual attending the show sees another individual with a gun for sale, asks about it, and buys it on a person to person basis without a licensed dealer involved. This is a private sale, regardless if it takes place at a gun show, at a gun range, in a home, or under a bridge in the dark of night. Specific laws regarding private sales of firearms vary from state to state.

If you are selling a gun in a private sale, you had best be familiar with, and obey, your state laws regarding private sales. And those laws are generally quite different than the laws governing sales by licensed dealers. There are no loopholes for sales at gun shows. If you are a dealer at a gun show, you must obey the laws applicable to dealers. If you are a private citizen at a gun show, you must obey the laws applicable to a private citizen. No exception. No loopholes.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns.




[/ QUOTE ]

Fie. I fart in your general direction. You haven't a clue as to what a "huge percentage" is, or how such sales could possibly occur at a gun show.

[doubLe a tom]

I didnt read most of this thread so I might be repeating what someone else said.

Hand guns SUCK. They are absolutely pointless. People use the excuse that "they need them for protection". Protection from what, other people with guns? That is [censored]. I dont think they'd need these guns if nobody had guns. I cant really think of one good use for a hand gun. Maybe recreationally, for markmanship competitions but thats about it.

I dont get how the Gov't can be so controlling over far less harmless things such as marijuana and internet gambling yet basically allow anybody and their brother to own multiple hand guns. Christ, in almost every other civilized country in the world the police dont even carry guns.

I am perfectly fine with the right to own rifles and shotguns as they can be used in a purposeful manner. But handguns... are you [censored] me? what a joke.

[Innocent Kitty]

[ QUOTE ]
Your first argument isn't really valid. Of course there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. If there are zero guns in the country there can be no gun violence. I'm sure the framers knew when they wrote the Bill of Rights that innocent people would die as a result of the 2nd amendment. They thought that LESS innocent people would die (through government actions rather than "street criminals") if the populace were armed.

I differ with you here. Having written a law review note on the subject, I can assure you that the Framers understood that the Freedoms protected could/would be abused by some among us, but felt the overall good outweighed the bad. Street crime as we know it was not much of a factor, but being secure in your home was. Similarly, having just defeated an army of professional and mercenary soldiers with lightly trained militias, the concept that individual citizens had a right to own weapons was so clear that it frankly bore little discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're saying the same thing here. Its the same as with the VI Amendment, you know some guilty criminals are going to be set free. Its better than the alternative.

[Innocent Kitty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence? I find that hard to believe. I of course agree that other factors play a huge role as well.

Second, this isn't really a thumbs up or thumbs down question. A very small percentage of people have a problem with a farmer in Kansas hunting deer with a legally purchased rifle. Likewise, a very small percentage of people think that the Second Amendment should be interpreted so as to prevent the state or federal government from restricting the purchase of anti-aircraft weaponry. The right answer obviously is somewhere in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first argument isn't really valid. Of course there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. If there are zero guns in the country there can be no gun violence. I'm sure the framers knew when they wrote the Bill of Rights that innocent people would die as a result of the 2nd amendment. They thought that LESS innocent people would die (through government actions rather than "street criminals") if the populace were armed.

You are correct in your second point, the answer is somewhere in between. Its a slippery slope, though. The problem when laws are written, is only law-abiding citizens take note. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem with gun violence, by definition. The majority of gun owners are law-abiding. How much hassle should they be put through to keep the guns out of the hands of a few criminals?


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin,
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul Phillips -- "Now as it happens I believe that 0% of the gun deaths in the US are preventable through gun prohibition."

I asked the first question because I wanted to know exactly how many people agreed with the above quote from the Paul Phillips article, which struck me as absurd on its face.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no, that's not what you asked. You asked if people thought if there was a correlation between the amount of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. And I'd actually like to be able to take back my statement of saying there's a direct correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun violence. This is true to a point, as if there are no guns, there will be no gun violence. But you better damn well believe that if guns are prohibited, and there are only 50,000 guns in the country, its going to be the unsavory among us who own them. PROHIBITION IS NOT ELIMINATION. Elimination is not practical, and probably impossible without massive resources being devoted to it.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I agree, it did that for me too (and I'm not even American). I like this idea a lot, it strikes me as being a long term wise balance to government.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, here. In the olden days of prehistory, I first learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts, probably at about age 12. I also took a class in Gun Safety and Marksmanship as a physical education elective in college. My university had a rifle range under the stadium grandstands. I'm sure that the mere suggestion of such things would cause cardiac arrest in the majority of today's nanny-staters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, I used air rifles in the boy scouts and proper rifles in the CCF (cadet force) at secondary school - and I'm in the UK. We aren't even talking about a long time ago, I am 27.

However, I think that the arguments for gun ownership to "protect yourself from criminals" are extremely tenuous and I suspect a waste of time. I also have an underlying feeling that rewarding people for owning guns is a bad thing, but obviously the gun control issue isn't too big of a one in the UK so I haven't given it enough thought.

The argument that you should have the right to bear arms so that you have protection from your government is a very strong one to me though, and I agree with it completely. It's the only valid argument that I can see really, and I think that widespread gun ownership has definite problems, it's just that they are not as important as the long term benefit - i.e, protecting democracy.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the opposition forces in those countries resisted with military hardware, most of it supplied by foreign governments (or pilfered from internal standing armies)

[/ QUOTE ]
An American dictatorship would be opposed by a lot of nations, notably any democracies that still existed at the time, but even if there were none there would still be enemies of the American government and people who would happily supply weapons/aid to see it stuck in a quagmire of guerilla civil war.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is obviously a correlation, I just think that the price is sufficiently small to be offset by the benefits to the long term health of the civilisation.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
Funs facts:

From 2001-2005 in the US:

An average of 42,000 people die in auto-accidents.
An average of 20,000 people die from the common flu.
An average of 17,000 people die from gun-related suicide.
An average of 11,000 people die from gun-related homicide.

When examining violent crime in the US from 2001-2005:

98% of violent crimes committed are non-fatal.

Of those, less than 10% are gun-related.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another fun fact from the DoJ website -- "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

If your numbers are correct, this is pretty startling. Less than ten percent of violent crime involves a gun, yet two-thirds of murders involve a gun. I think that this seriously undermines the argument that would-be murderers would simply use a knife, baseball bat, etc. if guns were unavailable.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funs facts:

From 2001-2005 in the US:

An average of 42,000 people die in auto-accidents.
An average of 20,000 people die from the common flu.
An average of 17,000 people die from gun-related suicide.
An average of 11,000 people die from gun-related homicide.

When examining violent crime in the US from 2001-2005:

98% of violent crimes committed are non-fatal.

Of those, less than 10% are gun-related.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another fun fact from the DoJ website -- "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

If your numbers are correct, this is pretty startling. Less than ten percent of violent crime involves a gun, yet two-thirds of murders involve a gun. I think that this seriously undermines the argument that would-be murderers would simply use a knife, baseball bat, etc. if guns were unavailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.