Breaking- Church shooting in TX

[highland145]

heh, obviously we disagree about that point--but it's not whether or not we disagree. One should be able to point to whether or not someone actually wants to do x, or whether they don't. That's really quite important.

We're going to keep disagreeing until I see some dude's platform that says that the whole gunshow concept is the problem, rather than specific unregulated sales that occur at gun shows. I hear that this is "a misnomer," but with a bit of hand-waving that "yeah, unlicensed sales are a problem," ....but "because they use the wrong terms to describe the problem, we really can't do anything about it!"

this...seems terribly infantile to me.

And I see the problem.

 

[HumblePie]

Are you sure it's "most?" Why is it not "all?"

"Despite what some may say, there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” Sales through FFL dealers and private transactions at a gun show function exactly the same as they would outside of a gun show."

"Gun control advocates who push for “closing the gun show loophole” are actually proposing to ban private sales entirely."

Huh? Shows are maligned for their wide availability including of different models, and the ease of obtaining a gun there by a criminal who can just check a box in many cases (as I know is the case with any private sale).

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/3/buying-and-selling-a-firearm-gun-shows/

"Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Because there is no LAW that states where private sales can or cannot occur between to private individuals.

MOST gunshows have it as policy that disallow private sales during the show or on the grounds around the show. Mainly so people aren't trying to screw over the actual FFL dealers selling guns as part of their legitimate business at the booths they paid for. This is why if you tried to bring a cooler full of hotdogs to a sporting event to try to sell during the event, you are more than likely going to be asked to leave because you are interrupting the business done by those that are authorized vendors.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Obviously i'm not the one having difficulty with this. Obviously, you guys are admitting there is the one gunshow loophole that has only ever been talked about, but saying it isn't so because people make their sales in their cars, in the parking lots....at the gunshow or, rather "the special place designated to sale guns outside of this show."

you can't make this shit up. Gaslighting at its finest.

What is the loophole? Be specific please.

 

[zinfamous]

The problem is that politicians and media call it a "gunshow loophole" and thus directly conflate gunshows, private party sales, and sales without background checks into a big bad "legal loophole" as if it was something that originally intended to not be legally allowed. The term "loophole" makes it seem like the intent of some law had gone awry in the wording or forgot to cover something. There was no law ever forcing background checks on private party sales. By using "gunshow" as a term that are demonizing gunshows and people that go to them making them all seem like people there are all doing something shady and just barely legal using "loopholes" in the law.

The truth is nothing of the sort. The concocted terms are just that. They are meant to give people like you fear and something else to denounce/whine over while being blissfully ignorant.

So it's actually worse than the media wants us to think it is, but since they aren't 100% correct and honest about using the only terms that you approve...we should just ignore it and do nothing forever?

 

[zinfamous]

What is the loophole? Be specific please.

It's OK, you were specific enough about it. Several of you were, actually.

 

[K1052]

And what about legal gun owners? Include them too?

Everbody. Turn them in and get paid or enjoy some federal prison time if caught with one. There would need to be a perpetual amnesty for weapons to be surrendered also.

 

[blackangst1]

Because there is no LAW that states where private sales can or cannot occur between to private individuals.

MOST gunshows have it as policy that disallow private sales during the show or on the grounds around the show. Mainly so people aren't trying to screw over the actual FFL dealers selling guns as part of their legitimate business at the booths they paid for. This is why if you tried to bring a cooler full of hotdogs to a sporting event to try to sell during the event, you are more than likely going to be asked to leave because you are interrupting the business done by those that are authorized vendors.

Correct. There is NO gunshow loophole.

 

[zinfamous]

And I see the problem.

so it needs to be called "the private sales loophole" and the rest of you guys would be happy? I think we all recognize that there is a problem, and it is the same problem and while we don't agree on terms, we seem to think that this disagreement over terms is sufficient enough to stop progress on the matter? Yes, I guess I remain confused. 😀

"Death Tax" or "Inheritance tax." We all know it's the same thing, it only ever refers to the same thing and how politicians choose to address that same thing...but the terms used to reference that same thing are used purely politically, to sway public opinion in one direction and, surprisingly, often against the benefit of those that are being swayed.

....If I get on my liberal hotline and tell the higher-ups to start calling it the "Private sales loophole," can we all be on board? I recall that no one in here is against expanding the same background checks to all such sales. I mean, if you guys are serious about that, then what is really stopping this other than verbiage.

 

[zinfamous]

Correct. There is NO gunshow loophole.

...except the one that the gun show buyers here have pointed out, again and again.

 

[HumblePie]

Are you sure it's "most?" Why is it not "all?"

"Despite what some may say, there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” Sales through FFL dealers and private transactions at a gun show function exactly the same as they would outside of a gun show."

"Gun control advocates who push for “closing the gun show loophole” are actually proposing to ban private sales entirely."

Huh? Shows are maligned for their wide availability including of different models, and the ease of obtaining a gun there by a criminal who can just check a box in many cases (as I know is the case with any private sale).

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/3/buying-and-selling-a-firearm-gun-shows/

"Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Vendors at a gunshow, those who purchased a booth, are required to be FFL dealers if they are selling guns. If you own an FFL, you are not allowed to do a private transaction with a gun. Any gun sale is automatically going to be labeled a business for profit sale and MUST go through the NICS system. This is why the term "gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. I do not have an FFL. I can legally sell anyone of my firearms to anyone else I believe is not a criminal and of sound mind. I can do it in the parking lot of a Walmart, in the parking lot a gas station across from a gunshow, out at a shooting range, out in the woods while hunting, in my front yard, or where else I want to if the owner of the property has no problem with me being there.

Gunshows do not allow private sales to be conducted on their property/area because it interferes with the business done by resellers with an FFL. As I said with the example above, you go to ANY event or major gathering and you won't more than likely will be asked to leave if you try to do business there without obtaining permission first. Usually in the form of a booth permit. Whether that is at a gunshow, sporting event, county fair, flea market, or whatever it is.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's OK, you were specific enough about it. Several of you were, actually.

The term is incredibly misleading...making most people believe there is something nefarious going on at gun shows, that gun sales at these shows are somehow exempt from the law. The ignorant are easily confused and convinced by such a dishonest term....the means justifies the end I guess.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Ban all guns!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...01687974517_story.html?utm_term=.2fe39e95bc87

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Because guns are the only way people can commit mass murders.

There's idiocy and there's major idiocy, but you have raised the bar on idiocy. You are now the gold standard by which idiots are judged.

OF COURSE YOU CAN'T PREVENT 100% of PSYCHOS FROM KILLING PEOPLE. Want me to repeat that because you seem to be too stupid to get the point? OF COURSE YOU CAN'T PREVENT 100% of PSYCHOS FROM KILLING PEOPLE.

But you CAN reign in the body count by restricting the body count by eliminating the easiest, most effective, most user-friendly ways of mass killing. Did this psycho have the ability to bomb a building? FUCK NO. Did he have the ability to obtain military aircraft to drop chemical weapons like in Halabja? FUCK NO. Could he have killed so many people so quickly and so easily if the only gun he had access to was a bolt action hunting rifle? FUCK NO.

What part of that are you too stupid to understand? Your solution is that as long as there are potential other ways to commit mass murder that we should not take away THIS way to commit mass murder? REALLY?

 

[HumblePie]

so it needs to be called "the private sales loophole" and the rest of you guys would be happy? I think we all recognize that there is a problem, and it is the same problem and while we don't agree on terms, we seem to think that this disagreement over terms is sufficient enough to stop progress on the matter? Yes, I guess I remain confused. 😀

"Death Tax" or "Inheritance tax." We all know it's the same thing, it only ever refers to the same thing and how politicians choose to address that same thing...but the terms used to reference that same thing are used purely politically, to sway public opinion in one direction and, surprisingly, often against the benefit of those that are being swayed.

....If I get on my liberal hotline and tell the higher-ups to start calling it the "Private sales loophole," can we all be on board? I recall that no one in here is against expanding the same background checks to all such sales. I mean, if you guys are serious about that, then what is really stopping this other than verbiage.

It's not a "loophole" at all either.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

In terms of legal definition, it is an ambiguity of a legal law, that allows something that was never intended to be allowed by that law.

There has NEVER been a law that prevents private sales of firearms. There has never been a law requiring background checks on private sales. Calling it a "loophole" is incorrect and is only used to incite idiots like you.

If you said you want to make a NEW LAW that requires background checks on all sales, including private sales, then that is something worth debating. Using shit fear mongering terms like "loophole" is just being a shithead.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Everbody. Turn them in and get paid or enjoy some federal prison time if caught with one. There would need to be a perpetual amnesty for weapons to be surrendered also.

Completely untenable. Using a cost of $200 (VERY lenient, I'm sure the average cost of any pistol or long rifle is much closer to $300-$400), and assuming common figures of 300 million guns, if everyone took the government up on this, it'd cost the taxpayers $60 billion, just for the purchase price. Billions more would be spent actually getting the plan off the ground, disposal of the weapons, paying salaries, etc.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the economic cost of the loss of life and conversation between individuals is less than that, as unpleasant a notion as that is.

 

[HumblePie]

But you CAN reign in the body count by restricting the body count

To the bold is what I was pointing out about your idiocy. Your belief that you can "reign in the body count" at all by banning guns.

More people have been killed by knives, clubs, swords, spears, bows, and even fists in all of human history than guns. Even after the advent of guns, more people have been killed by bombs, vehicles, chemical weapons, fires, and biological agents in the form of murder than guns have. This is why YOU have raised the bar for idiocy and couldn't see the point I was making.

 

[highland145]

so it needs to be called "the private sales loophole" and the rest of you guys would be happy? I think we all recognize that there is a problem, and it is the same problem and while we don't agree on terms, we seem to think that this disagreement over terms is sufficient enough to stop progress on the matter? Yes, I guess I remain confused. 😀

"Death Tax" or "Inheritance tax." We all know it's the same thing, it only ever refers to the same thing and how politicians choose to address that same thing...but the terms used to reference that same thing are used purely politically, to sway public opinion in one direction and, surprisingly, often against the benefit of those that are being swayed.

....If I get on my liberal hotline and tell the higher-ups to start calling it the "Private sales loophole," can we all be on board? I recall that no one in here is against expanding the same background checks to all such sales. I mean, if you guys are serious about that, then what is really stopping this other than verbiage.

You understand the points being made but continue on like you have and expect "progress" to be made? Fine.

 

[bradly1101]

Even where the "loophole" was supposedly closed... This was way back in '09, and I believe only applies to handguns. Are long gun purchases anywhere subject to background checks?

"Investigators hired by New York City conducted stings at gun shows in states that have not closed the "gun show loophole" and found some vendors openly selling weapons to buyers who admitted they couldn't pass background checks.

The stings, described in a city report released Wednesday, were conducted at seven gun shows in Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada. Those states are among the many that permit private unlicensed dealers, known as "occasional sellers," to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting background checks.

Gun-control advocates say the loophole makes it easier for criminals to acquire guns and prevents law enforcement from being able to trace those weapons if they are used in crimes.

Nine states, including New York, have passed laws to close the loophole, requiring background checks on at least all handgun purchases at gun shows. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has long campaigned for Congress to close the loophole, and for states to do it on their own if the federal government does not.

Even in states that haven't closed the loophole, federal law bars "occasional sellers" from selling guns to people they have reason to believe would fail a background check."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-undercover-stings-expose-gun-show-loophole/

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

OF COURSE YOU CAN'T PREVENT 100% of PSYCHOS FROM KILLING PEOPLE.

Why not? Serious question. Why should our sights be set on relieving pressure from a single tool, rather than focusing on the root issue? I just responded to someone entertaining the prospect of spending $60B, minimum, on a buyback program. How far would a $60B 'Manhattan/Apollo project' level research event for mental health go?

 

[fskimospy]

Correct. There is NO gunshow loophole.

FALSE. The gunshow loophole, meaning the 'private sale loophole', exists and this cannot be argued. The only scope for argument that I see is that the media and perhaps the left should describe it more accurately as it is a much, MUCH larger problem than just gun shows. If anything you should be thanking people for understating the problem.

It's this sort of pedantic nonsense that seems to primarily appear in gun threads as a way to shut down debate. It's just like how gun enthusiasts constantly try to belittle people for mixing up clips vs. magazines. While there is a difference, everyone involved in the discussion knows people are referring to ways in which people feed ammunition into a gun so that it can be fired repeatedly.

 

[Svnla]

Sorry, to clarify, I meant a nation-wide increase in mental health research\awareness, with the specific intent on locating individuals who are in need of mental 'medical' attention, in the same way we do for physical and (arguably) spiritual wellness. In theory, this could have 'teased out' whatever it was that was going on in this person's head which give this particular person a proclivity toward violence, and either treat it or at least prevent them from obtain a weapon, while not limiting the rights of citizens who aren't prone to this kind of behavior.

Mind you, I expect this to be a rather expensive, and long-term endeavor, not something that happens overnight. I also think it's a solid way of approaching this issue without trodding over the rights of citizens, and as a bonus, it could put the US front-and-center on something again, with dramatic advancements in understanding the human mind and furthering our species' knowledge of how our brains work.

As I said to another poster above, I am ok with mental health/responsibility/medical check up.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

As I said to another poster above, I am ok with mental health/responsibility/medical check up.

Would you be in favor of a massive, wide-scale effort from the US to improve mental health care/awareness? I don't mean access to clinics (though that's a big part of it), I mean a $Billion+ effort from the government to seed advancement of mental health research to understand the *why* of these situations?

 

[K1052]

Completely untenable. Using a cost of $200 (VERY lenient, I'm sure the average cost of any pistol or long rifle is much closer to $300-$400), and assuming common figures of 300 million guns, if everyone took the government up on this, it'd cost the taxpayers $60 billion, just for the purchase price. Billions more would be spent actually getting the plan off the ground, disposal of the weapons, paying salaries, etc.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the economic cost of the loss of life and conversation between individuals is less than that, as unpleasant a notion as that is.

We're not talking about all the guns, just semi-auto. Pump action, lever guns, revolvers, bolt action, etc would remain legal. Our excessive rate of firearm deaths have a cost in the billions annually already, I don't think we could get all of that to go away but a major reduction would save lots of cash long term.

 

[woolfe9998]

The term is incredibly misleading...making most people believe there is something nefarious going on at gun shows, that gun sales at these shows are somehow exempt from the law. The ignorant are easily confused and convinced by such a dishonest term....the means justifies the end.

I tend to agree that "gun show loophole" is the wrong term here. The problem is that what you are describing as an attempt to mislead may in fact be leading people to believe that the problem is less serious than it actually is. Sales from people without a permit can happen at gun shows or in many other contexts. Maybe the term is unfair to gun shows but it's also causing people to think the scope of the problem is limited only to gun shows, when clearly it is not.

 

[HumblePie]

FALSE. The gunshow loophole, meaning the 'private sale loophole', exists and this cannot be argued. The only scope for argument that I see is that the media and perhaps the left should describe it more accurately as it is a much, MUCH larger problem than just gun shows. If anything you should be thanking people for understating the problem.

It's this sort of pedantic nonsense that seems to primarily appear in gun threads as a way to shut down debate. It's just like how gun enthusiasts constantly try to belittle people for mixing up clips vs. magazines. While there is a difference, everyone involved in the discussion knows people are referring to ways in which people feed ammunition into a gun so that it can be fired repeatedly.

WRONG

THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW!!!

There can only be a loophole if there was a law previously trying to prevent, restrict, or force background checks on all private sales. There hasn't ever been such a law. There is NO LOOPHOLE!

The term is a fear mongering term coined by some bad politicians and their media puppet outlets. Nothing more.

I have ZERO problem with enacting a new law that requires NICS background checks to be preformed for all sales though. None what so ever. I have a problem with paying for it, because such a system should be free and available to all. My only stipulation, and the stipulation of many 2nd amendment rights people. Of course my suggestion up above makes great sense though for payment of such a law 🙂

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

We're not talking about all the guns, just semi-auto. Pump action, lever guns, revolvers, bolt action, etc would remain legal. Our excessive rate of firearm deaths have a cost in the billions annually already, I don't think we could get all of that to go away but a major reduction would save lots of cash long term.

So assume half the guns are semi-auto (probably more, as you're including a huge number of pistols and rifles), that's still $30B *just* for the buyout, assume 4x the cost for overhead. We're already ripping apart the middle class for tax cuts for the top 1%, where do you think this money's going to come from, exactly?

And I'd love to see some kind of cost analysis of 'future cost savings' on a $30B semi-auto weapon buyback program.