Three questions for democrats


Che'_Moderator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, my local lefties cannot explain this to me so I am turning to crowd sourcing. I need these three gun control questions answered:

 

1. What is the gunshow loophole?

2. What is the online loophole?

3. How are states with less gun control leading to more firearms in states with tighter gun control? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a very liberal person so I will try to answer your questions. 

1. Um...
2. Huh...
3. Ah...  

If your not satisfied with my answers send Kevin de Leon an email. He seems to know his stuff about gun laws. 
"This is a ghost gun. This right here has ability with a 30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. 30 magazine clip in half a second."
600x4443.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2016 at 9:00 AM, Che'_Moderator said:

1. What is the gunshow loophole?

2. What is the online loophole?

3. How are states with less gun control leading to more firearms in states with tighter gun control? 

Let's line these up. You're trolling but the discussion gets stale unless it's regularly fed with new material.  I'm not Mike, nor am I a lefty (at least politically speaking) but I'll try to put his thinking cap on and explain the complaint along with a more rational perspective (my thoughts) of why the talking points on either the Right or Left is wrongheaded.

Let's just state upfront that Obama's Executive Action did absolutely nothing to make the country safer except give the impression that he is DOING something.  Except those actions are costing the taxpayers with minimal benefit that will accrue to them.  Because laws already exist that require any Federally licensed firearms dealer to perform a background check on any individual who purchases a gun from them, online or in person no matter where the transaction takes place. So what he's really targeting are so called "personal transactions" under the belief that there's a groundswell of sellers who present themselves as private owners in order to duck the requirement to perform background checks in the 42 States that do not require a background check on every single sale. Interestingly enough among those 8 States are that do require them are California (San Bernardino MMuslim killers check), Colorado (Aurora theater joker check), Connecticut (Newtown nutjob check), and a few others.  Mike's good fortune is that all handgun sales in PA (also in Maryland) are required to be run through a background check but that leaves it wide open to the Islamofascists and mentally ill to legally acquire long guns for their dastardly deeds without a check.

Gun show loophole: the claim here is that you can acquire a gun quickly without any check.  The only way this is happening is if some dealer is selling them out in the parking lot while posing as a private owner.  Or some private owner is displaying and selling guns from their private collection (because we know the preppers all have massive arsenals).  Certainly it could be assumed that some parking lot transactions are happening between enthusiasts. But the question is whether any of those guns are winding up in the hands of killers.  The data, which is pretty spotty at best, shows that this is rare.  What we do see however is that many guns are winding up in the hands of felons and kids through a wide variety of misrepresentations. Like the guns that get lost or are reported stolen. Or are simply sold from someone's personal arsenal and then the person bought it does deals on the street.  

Online loophole: Again, this is focused gun sales that happen between two parties online without a background check.  Except according to Federal law that is illegal if the sale is happening across State lines.  The only way such a transaction can happen is for the gun to be shipped to a locally licensed firearms dealer who will perform the background check before releasing the gun to the new owner.  So, online background check free sales are not supposed to happen unless they're happening in State or if the two people meet online and then meetup to sell the gun in person.

So if we look closely at what Obama is proposing he's saying there are too many loose transactions happening in grey areas that aren't well monitored whether it be in person or online.  One could assume this is what he intends the new ATF and FBI agents to focus on in the form of stings and what not.  Except we've seen how well the ATF does in such stings with their total screw up in the Fast and Furious scandal.  So we should expect more of the same incompetence only it's going to cost us approximately another $1 Billion added on to the already massive budget deficit.

States with less gun control leading to more firearms in States with tighter gun control: This one I think the gun rights advocates regularly misrepresent when they claim that gun control doesn't work.  Every new shooting that happens in Chicago is regularly pointed out as evidence that clearly tight gun control is a failed endeavor.  But where do these kids get their guns from? Gang members, stolen guns, weapons that are found in alleys and abandoned homes, etc. And often these guns are purchased at gun shows from private collections or even through licensed firearms dealers in Indiana and the suburbs and then brought into the city to sell for a substantial profit.  There's a whole pipeline of sales that happen through this pathway. This gives credence to the statement that gun control measures to prevent felons (or those who don't want the gun being tied back to them when it is used in a crime) from walking into a store and purchasing a weapon and makes them hesitant to make purchases from anyone they don't know in order to avoid stings.  So the measures work, but these guys have other outlets through friends, family, and new recruits with no record to make the purchases for them.

Does that mean gun control doesn't wok?  I think the only way you would know is if you wiped the slate clean, took away all of the weapons, and then put restriction on who could purchase them across the entire country.  Australia, as much as it is maligned and bally-hooed demonstrates that gun control decreases gun violence.  Does it decrease other types of violence?  Probably not but that violence will still be less deadly when it comes to mass killings.  Otherwise there will always be opportunities to game the system. Anywhere you rely on people to self report transition of ownership there will be large gaps.  Further, many of the mass murders that get hyped up on CNN (I mentioned a few earlier) are acted out by someone who had legal rights to acquire those guns and we had no way of anticipating how they would used them. In other words, until we reach a point of successful precrime predictions (never going to happen), the majority of these attacks will continue no matter what restrictions you put on gun purchases unless they are completely outlawed and all existing weapons are removed from private ownership.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhh... that "online loophole." 

That makes me laugh.  We should just cut the chase so we can develop the "United States of America : INTERNET POLICE."   You know they want it!  They a frothing at the mouth for something asinine and as expensive as that whole name implies.  

War on __________(fill in scary internet thing here).   Slogan : "Freedom isn't free" (read: neither are you)

 

Seriously, what's with the lack of realization that we live in a world that not only everything isn't tracked... it shouldn't be.  Tracking everything is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Burn-E said:

States with less gun control leading to more firearms in States with tighter gun control: This one I think the gun rights advocates regularly misrepresent when they claim that gun control doesn't work.  Every new shooting that happens in Chicago is regularly pointed out as evidence that clearly tight gun control is a failed endeavor.  But where do these kids get their guns from? Gang members, stolen guns, weapons that are found in alleys and abandoned homes, etc. And often these guns are purchased at gun shows from private collections or even through licensed firearms dealers in Indiana and the suburbs and then brought into the city to sell for a substantial profit.  There's a whole pipeline of sales that happen through this pathway. This gives credence to the statement that gun control measures to prevent felons (or those who don't want the gun being tied back to them when it is used in a crime) from walking into a store and purchasing a weapon and makes them hesitant to make purchases from anyone they don't know in order to avoid stings.  So the measures work, but these guys have other outlets through friends, family, and new recruits with no record to make the purchases for them.

Except you cannot buy a gun outside your state of residence. 

7 hours ago, Burn-E said:

Anywhere you rely on people to self report transition of ownership there will be large gaps.  Further, many of the mass murders that get hyped up on CNN (I mentioned a few earlier) are acted out by someone who had legal rights to acquire those guns and we had no way of anticipating how they would used them. In other words, until we reach a point of successful precrime predictions (never going to happen), the majority of these attacks will continue no matter what restrictions you put on gun purchases unless they are completely outlawed and all existing weapons are removed from private ownership.

New law is expected to increase the number of gun dealers by 400%. Previous law which is being trumped forbid individuals from having SOT/FFL. So instead of relying of 50,000 corporations to regulate, we will go back to 1990s numbers of over a quarter of a million dealers, (individuals). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a private transaction in Indiana that is then carried over State lines and sold on the streets of Chicago there is nothing to prevent it except that it's not supposed to happen.

No one said anything about whether or not the guy buying them in Indiana was or wasn't a resident.  The point is law skirting is happening in one fashion or another.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

If it's a private transaction in Indiana that is then carried over State lines and sold on the streets of Chicago there is nothing to prevent it except that it's not supposed to happen.

 

You just described all laws. In this case though, its already illegal. Telling someone its illegal a second time is more effective than telling them once?

 

What I think is fucked up is in the last few years over 2 million felons tried to buy guns illegally. Less than ten were charged. Go round up those 2 million fucks then pass new laws if you are still bored.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm just telling you how the gun pipeline has worked.  I already stated that there is no additional law necessary.  Whether the guy buying the guns has a fake Indiana ID (true story of a college kid who got popped by the Feds) or is a resident and then commits the Felony of transporting them across State lines and selling them, the law is impotent except as an after the fact charge when the gun shows up in a murder scene.  But that is avoided by declaring the gun stolen or lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is what I stated up front. Except that in the Chicago instance, the laws were at the city and county level but not at the State level.  So you have the potential for an intrastate purchase to happen that is actually a loophole of the local level laws. A small percentage of firearms dealers in the collar counties of Cook County turn out to be the source for a majority of the weapons that wind up on the streets there. Which gives the lie to the remark that gun control doesn't work.  It all depends on how broad the ban is geographically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share