Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

NRA's numbers don't add up- Part 1

So let's take a look at some things that just don't add up. I guess anything goes with the NRA and the newly empowered Republican legislature in Minnesota. The chair of the Republican party decided to make up a bunch of nonsense in a campaign brochure attacking the Democratic candidate in a special election in Northern Minnesota. There are so many wrong headed assertions in this brochure that just beg for clarification and correction. First of all, the Democrats are not the majority in the Minnesota legislature so intimating that they are going to take away gun rights is total fabrication since it would not be possible in the current legislative make-up.

Of course, it is actually the majority Republicans who are attempting to pass laws to repeal current gun laws and will likely promote more guns in more places. You know- more guns+more guns= less crime and shootings? The numbers don't add up. We continue to have 32 gun homicides every day in our country and more due to suicide and accidental discharges. Some are "just" injuries. If more guns made us safer, we would have the fewest number of gun deaths per 100,000 than most other countries not at war. Such is not the case.

Another thing that doesn't add up is the insensitivity about using gun rhetoric and a photo of a gun pointing at, well, pointing at what? On the inside of the brochure is a picture of the young woman Democratic candidate with words calling her a fake and claiming that she will have something to do with those liberal Democrats taking away guns and gun rights. Talk amongst yourselves and decide whether there is something eerily similar to the gun sites on Sarah Palin's map and a resemblance to Gabrielle Giffords. And the Republican candidate is claiming innocence saying he knew nothing about the brochure; he probably would have preferred not to use such an ad. The chair of the Minnesota Republican party claims the brochure is just about hunting. Really? Do they expect us to believe that?

What gets into politicians and operatives? Can't they see the danger in what they are doing when they publish a brochure like this? What happens when the NRA and it's minions think that anything goes? What happens when they think that just because Northern Minnesota has a lot of hunters, all of the hunters will be duped into thinking that this young woman, a hunter herself, has any intentions of going after other people's guns or rights? Is the Second Amendment so sacrosanct that people lose their ability to be rational when it comes to supporting it? What does it mean to support the second amendment? Absolutism is not a good idea when it comes to anything. But when it comes to guns, it is downright dangerous. Do the gun owners of Northern Minnesota fall for these lies? If they are like the gun owners and hunters who have answered questions on recent polling, the answer is "no". The majority ( I have provided this information on other posts, here and here) believe that it makes common sense and it is perfectly reasonable to have some restrictions on access to guns by some people who should not have them. This doesn't fit with the NRA notion that all gun owners believe, as their leaders do, that any reasonable restrictions mean total gun confiscation and trampling on rights.


Follow up in today's Duluth News Tribune shows that I am not the only one who feels this way. In the opinion of one letter writer "...I feel there’s no room to plant such suggestive seeds as the gun brochure promoting Paul Jacobson as the Republican candidate. I felt it was disrespectful to those who lost their lives in Arizona. I thought common sense dictated these kinds of suggestive images would be off limits to all who campaign." Indeed. But ever opportunistic NRA supported Republicans have exhibited their disrespect and insensitivity once again. And yes, free advertising using gun language and gun images is just unacceptable as another letter writer pointed out: " The powers-that-be must know that many people only see the headline about guns and assume voting for a Democrat means the Democrats are out to take their guns away." The NRA continues to trot out this tired line and what's worse, many believe it. It's not true, of course, but truth doesn't matter when the numbers don't add up. When the carnage continues due to easy access to guns by people who shouldn't have them, what else does the NRA have but hyperbole and fear? When gun rhetoric represents intimidation and threats, they must think they can get away with it- just like the school yard bully. The inconvenient numbers and blood of victims doesn't seem to bother them.


In part 2 of this post, I will give more examples of the truth about guns and ammo. The NRA has had their run. Now it's time to challenge them about their incorrect numbers and their faulty logic. Common sense and public safety demand the truth.

55 comments:

  1. If you want people to stop feeling that you're a threat to their gun rights, you might try stopping being a threat to their gun rights.

    And no, simply being voted out of power is not enough. As long as their is a political faction in this country that is dedicated to working against gun rights, it will be necessary for right-thinking people to work against their ever obtaining positions of power or influence.

    "Here's an idea...If nobody wants a 'civil disturbance,' why in heck don't they quit disturbing us?" -- From MamaLiberty over at War on Guns

    ReplyDelete
  2. GMC70 says:

    " The inconvenient numbers and blood of victims doesn't seem to bother them."


    Uh - except that even as more and more states adopt liberal CCH laws, and gun and ammunition sales are setting records, we are experiencing near record lows in violent crime.

    Imagine that.

    For years, the gunbanners have been crying about "blood in the streets" with expanded concealed carry. And for years, they've been wrong.

    Color me shocked.

    Oh - and you still don't have the votes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So Answer the most simple question. For close to twenty years gun sales have gone up every year in America, yet violent crime has fallen over those twenty years by significant amounts. By your arguments, there should be huge increases in violent crime.


    How do you explain it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. jdege- Am I disturbing you? So sorry. I'm disturbed by all the people shot to death every day. It's pretty disturbing to the families of the victims to go through death, funerals, courtroom trials, grief, etc. That's disturbing. When we get some common sense about gun laws a whole lot of people will be less disturbed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oops- you have conveniently forgotten, anon, that gun deaths have stayed the same or are going up in spite of all the new CCW laws. And crime- down in some places, up in others- having nothing whatsoever to do with CCW.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I dont care if the abolition of firearms reduced the homicide rate or not (it wont), the abolition of firearms ownership for the purposes of self defense is wrong. That is what england has done, self-defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm there. I dont care what good effects it would have short of eliminating all criminal attacks of all sorts. Depriving people of the effective tools of self defense is wrong.

    Similarly, if I could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that censorship of the news could prevent the ills of this country it still would not be right.

    Since you have yourself stated that people should be allowed to own firearms, can we agree that
    1. Using them in self-defense should be legal
    2. Defense is a valid reason to own a firearm
    3. With reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized access, keeping a firearm in a state where it is able to be used for defense should be legal?

    If you cant agree to those things (I am not asking you about CCW or anything) than there is no common ground and you are the one out of touch with the American people. Many Americans can agree to gun control laws of various types. But if you cant agree to the above 3 points you are AT LEAST as out of touch with the average American as the biggest pro-gun idealogue out there, if not more.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes. And you would be surprised to know that most of the people with whom I work feel the same way. I think it is you guys who are out of touch with what the average American really thinks. I love your hyperbolic words there. I'm sure you are not an idealogue. Of course not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Poor Thomas. Apparently he thinks I will be intimidated by his stupid comments. I wonder if he is always this obnoxious. I'm sure he knows that he won't be published on my blog but he persists anyway. I call that harassment. Very unseemly and childish.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is it 32 deaths or 80? Because Dennis Hannigan said in a recent interview that it was 80. You'd think you guys would get together and get the number right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Don't worry, anon. We have our heads together and on straight. The total number of gun deaths a day in this country is 80, including homicide, suicide and accidental deaths. 32 is the number of homicides. You'd think you could look that up and find out for yourself that we are right.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It looks to me like the guy with the shotgun is pointing it more at the other silhouetted hunters rather than at the opponent. I will see if I can line them up in one picture. It is odd that none of the news sites have a picture of it lined up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Do you realize that the GOP doesn't equal the NRA? Just because some Republican politician puts out a press release doesn't mean the message was blessed on high by the Grand NRA Poobah.

    Does your group take responsibility for the content, timing, and fact-checking of every single press release put out by a politician you rate positively? Maybe y'all do, but I highly doubt it.

    You might be able to argue, "Republican lawmakers yield to NRA pressure" or "Republican lawmakers collaborate with NRA on legislative agenda" but I doubt most of these politicians are actual salaried mouthpieces for the NRA making statements written by the NRA Board of Directors. Likewise, I wouldn't call a Democrat who voted for the Patriot Act or war in Iraq to be a mouthpiece of Dick Cheney.

    There isn't a grand NRA conspiracy. There's just a lot of motivated members who donate a lot of money and write their elected officials--and thus politicians listen.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous asked:

    "Since you have yourself stated that people should be allowed to own firearms, can we agree that
    1. Using them in self-defense should be legal
    2. Defense is a valid reason to own a firearm
    3. With reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized access, keeping a firearm in a state where it is able to be used for defense should be legal?"


    I would agree to all that if every gun transfer required a background check and all gun owners were licensed and every gun was registered to a particular owner.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Are you excusing the ad, Anthony?

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's pretty interesting to me, Chris, that very few Republican lawmakers are for gun control. So yes, it seems as if the leadership at least is supported by the NRA with contributions and support in elections. If you are running for office, it's a good idea to know what those who are supporting you are up to. Otherwise you might be co-opted by a group much as Jacobsen claims he was. It's kind of hard to say you don't condone things like this once they are out there. The ad clearly was in support of Jacobsen and "aimed" at the Democrat. It came from the Minnesota Republican party. These numbers add up- 1 Republican Minnesota state party chair + the NRA= support for the Republican candidate + an NRA ad "aiming" at the Democratic candidate. The total= sleaze and dangerous rhetoric with the young Democratic candidate being offered security by the local Sheriff's department. Hmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, crime has gone down where CCW is allowed. Even has dropped in DC since Heller. . . It has only gone up in cities like Boston where they don't allow CCW. . . wrong again.

    You want us to believe you suddenly got respect for the Second Amendment then start repealing these foolish gun laws we have now and prove it.

    You make so much noice about the NRA. . . If they are not the will of the people, then why are they doing so well when at the same time the gun control groups are loosing funding?? Or failing completly (like American Hunters was it called? here for the election and gone now?)

    ReplyDelete
  17. NRA=paranoia, fear, hyperbole, money, influence. You are wrong- crime going down has nothing to do with CCW laws. There are more gun deaths in states with looser gun laws. That is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  18. GMC70 says:

    japete - the NRA's clout isn't hard to understand. It's simple. They have lots of members, they speak for millions more who are not members but tend to agree with those positions, and most importantly, those members are motivated to get involved, write, contact their representatives, and vote.

    In much of the country, 60-70% of households have a firearm. It's not unusual, it's not an issue, it's normal and expected. And we will not tolerate infringements on that right.

    Given that, the "gun lobby" (a term you use as a pejorative) of course has clout. Hell, if there was a lobby for Tupperware with the same motivation, Congress would fall all over itself to protect plastic containers and ban alternatives.

    It's simple politics: motivated members, who's involvement translates into money, communication, and votes equals political clout.

    That's the way democracies work.

    It's also why you don't have the votes. There will be no new gun control laws passed at the Federal level. Too bad (not really!!!!).

    As to the ad you seem to be all worked up about: First, you're still touting the "political rhetoric led to the Tucson shooting" meme, though it has no credibility whatsoever. Second, firearms/combat metaphors are routine and normal in this country; we go the "whole nine yards" or "go nuclear," etc. Politicians have been "targeting" their opponents for defeat for centuries, and yes, using exactly that metaphor. It's neither unusual nor in "poor taste." To think otherwise is political correctness run amok, and attempting to use same as an indicator of "insensitivity" (as if that's a bad thing!) is ridiculous.

    Put your big girl panties on, japete! Get over yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  19. GMC70 says:


    MikeB, licensing and registration is a non-starter. Period. End of conversation.

    There is room for compromise, though japete doesn't seek it; she seeks capitulation. But those two items are absolutely, positively, no question about it off the table. Ever.

    They accomplish nothing, and are a step toward confiscation. I know it, you know it. It's your intent, though you won't say so.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have my girl panties on already but thanks for the advice. I would never tell that to you or people on this blog. That is what makes us different from the NRA and you guys. Anything goes with you guys with your man pants on. Really though, " 60-70% of households have a firearm"- hmmm. On average only 30=40% of homes have guns in them and going down. The ones that do own multiple guns- like you guys. Why? Because the NRA has made you so afraid of your own shadows that you believe danger is lurking in every corner. I believe there is more danger the easy access to guns by those who shouldn't have them which you guys say you don't want but then resist every attempt to stop them from getting guns. It's all about you. Selfish and irresponsible. Keep those guns safe in your man pants. Don't let the felons carry them around in their man pants. Or those pesky domestic abusers who threaten their spouses and partners- I hope their man pants won't have guns in them. Someone in big girl panties may be the next victim of the guy in the man pants.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, GM- as I have said before, I am coming for your guns. Watch out. I have my big girl panties on and I'm organizing a posse of big girls ( see above). We are coming tomorrow to your house to demand your guns. Picture it now- a group of moms, girlfriends, sisters ( I don't have one anymore thanks to a bullet) daughers- we're coming. Be afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And you would be surprised to know that most of the people with whom I work feel the same way. I think it is you guys who are out of touch with what the average American really thinks.

    If that's true then how do you explain that the Brady Campaign has around 30,000 members and the NRA has 4.3 million? How do you explain the demographics of the representatives in Minnesota's legislature, as well as at the national level? How do you explain the increasing trend in legislation and laws that increase gun freedoms? How do you explain the audacity of one of Oregon's own representatives to propose constitutional carry in the state of Oregon? Really? Where did Rep. Kim Thatcher get the support to even try that? Poll after poll suggests most Americans oppose stricter gun control measures which is probably why the general media has dropped the subject so quickly after the Tucson tragedy.

    I haven't seen the ad you refer to and I don't know how solid its connection is to the NRA, but I agree that NRA literature can be extreme, and I for one usually relegate the worst of it to the shredder. I also know that Huffington Post and Village Voice can be extreme and I avoid them as well.

    But if we want to discuss extreme, how did we get from being upset about 30 round magazines to banning everything over 10 rounds, which is 1/3 of the problem capacity? That one extreme act really let the wasps out of their nest...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Migo- " If that's true then how do you explain that the Brady Campaign has around 30,000 members and the NRA has 4.3 million? How do you explain the demographics of the representatives in Minnesota's legislature, as well as at the national level? How do you explain the increasing trend in legislation and laws that increase gun freedoms? How do you explain the audacity of one of Oregon's own representatives to propose constitutional carry in the state of Oregon? Really? Where did Rep. Kim Thatcher get the support to even try that? Poll after poll suggests most Americans oppose stricter gun control measures which is probably why the general media has dropped the subject so quickly after the Tucson tragedy" Parnoia, fear, threats, money and power gained over years of the promoting the first 4 words in my sentence. The elections?- Outliers. The Tea Party and extremists co-opted the message and got lots of money from the Koch brothers and other very wealthy and influential conservatives. So far, you may have noticed that these folks are having a little trouble governing. They are promoting all of their favorite social issues and hardly having committee meetings or sessions in both the Minnesota legislature and the U.S. House of Reps. In the Senate, they are barely meeting because nothing is coming their way of any substance from the House or the Republicans. All they want to do is repeal everything without offering anything of substance that might actually move our country forward. Time will tell if the country and the states continue to put up with this nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  24. GMC70 says:

    Only 30-40% of households? Not here, my friend. much closer to 60-70% and take surveys that get you that number with a grain of salt. To be blunt, large numbers of gun owning households either will refuse to answer that question, or lie.

    I would.

    It's clear that not only do you not have any inkling of human nature, you don't understand how democracies work. The NRA beats the pants off you (and that's the big girl pants too) because they have the votes. You don't.

    Polls saying that Americans want stricter gun control laws and ask only that question are misleading, and intentionally so, as those polls are designed to get the answer the pollster wants. Many, if not most people don't even know the laws in place now. Once they learn what the laws are, most people say they're fine.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Actually GM, the opposite happens. When people are told that there are no background checks on all sales of guns at gun shows they are surprised and sign on. Yes, the average is 30-40% of homes with guns. That seems about right in my part of the country. As to polling, you can say they are misleading or leading except that, over time, they have been consistent. That shows a trend in support give or take over the years. As to human nature? What do you mean by that exactly? What makes you think I don't have an inkling about human nature that you seem to think you have? What is your expertise on human nature? How do you know that I am not an expert on human nature?

    ReplyDelete
  26. GMC70 says:

    When people are told that there are no background checks on all sales of guns at gun shows they are surprised and sign on.

    Except when they are told that such a statement is disingenuous, and that gun dealers at gun shows operate under exactly the same rules as anywhere else, and the dreaded "gun show loophole" is in fact nothing more than the fact that individuals who are not dealers can and do sell without going through the NICS system just as they may sell through the local paper (and something which is entirely impossible to prevent), then they realize they've been sold a bill of goods to drive an agenda.

    And then they join the NRA.

    You, japete, and folks like you, are the NRA's best recruiting tool. When people see what you're really about, they oppose you. When people see what a restrictive maze of laws exist on buying/owning a firearm now, many with little or no rhyme or reason, they generally understand that the laws needed (and more) are already in place. It then becomes crystal clear - you're not about "common sense" laws at all.

    That's cover.

    And Migo, the Brady Bunch has 30,000 members only in their dreams. Were it not for funding by the likes of the Joyce Foundation, they'd not exist at all.

    Bottom line, no new restrictions are coming. You don't have the votes, and they're not coming your way any time soon. The Administration is not going to touch new gun control; it's a political loser. Obama's a realist above all.

    Let's take you at your word, though.

    Let's assume you are willing to compromise, japete: If the gun community were willing to give up, say, magazines that extend beyond the magazines originally designed for any particular gun (i.e., a gun with a factory 10 round mag would be so limited, a gun with a factory 16 round mag would be so limited, a gun with a factory 30 round mag, such as an AR-15, would be so limited).

    What would you give on in return?

    Ending the GCA of '68, and permitting full auto sales, short barreled rifles, silencers (I'd enjoy not leaving the range with a headache!)? National CC reciprocity (which I'm not convinced the Federal gov't has the authority to do anyway)?

    Just where are you prepared to compromise? What do you give in return?

    ReplyDelete
  27. As you know, GM, I don't negotiate gun laws on this blog site. But this-" Except when they are told that such a statement is disingenuous, and that gun dealers at gun shows operate under exactly the same rules as anywhere else, and the dreaded "gun show loophole" is in fact nothing more than the fact that individuals who are not dealers can and do sell without going through the NICS system just as they may sell through the local paper (and something which is entirely impossible to prevent), then they realize they've been sold a bill of goods to drive an agenda."- NOT TRUE. In my state and 32 other states, anyone can buy guns from private sellers at gun shows without background checks. That is a fact. They are not the exact same rules as the ffls. That is a fact. You are wrong. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/gun-show-loophole-closed/story?id=10404727 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

    ReplyDelete
  28. So, I'm heading to IL for a couple of days and as per usual being a trained and licensed carry holder, I called the State Police to make sure I understood the IL laws. Net, net I can take my sidearm with me, it has to be in container and unreachable, it has to be unloaded with the ammo in a separate container..so much for that right to bear arms..and then it occurred to me that I have no need for my sidearm at all because IL's gun laws will completely protect me as they do all of its citizens. Given IL's gun laws there must be NO crime at all in IL, heck Chicago must be a completely crime free utopia with its one party rule, draconian (and unconstitutional) gun laws. No one ever gets murdered there, no shootings, there is no violent crime and everyone has nothing to fear at all; heck they should consider banning self defense classes like Krav Maga and other marshal arts..just no need and gosh violence only begets more violence.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, indeed. I travel to Illinois often and I really never considered taking a gun along. As a matter of fact, when we drive to Pennsylvania to visit my daughter, we drive through Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We have traveled all over this country by car. I never considered that I would need a gun while visiting those fair states. We have driven to or traveled to almost all of the lower 48 and Hawaii. Not once did it cross my mind that I would need a gun. Somehow we have managed to survive. I wonder how? I have also traveled in quite a few foreign countries without the need of a gun. We were even in Turkey during an uprising and people protesting. And somehow the need of a gun never came to mind. I can actually understand why some people may think differently and if traveling to Chicago where there is a lot of crime and certainly a lot of shootings, one might think they have a need for a gun. Many others do not, however, and seem to do fine without them. I guess my policy is to try to stay out of places where I could be more vulnerable. But that's me and you are you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "NOT TRUE. In my state and 32 other states, anyone can buy guns from private sellers at gun shows without background checks. That is a fact. They are not the exact same rules as the ffls. That is a fact. You are wrong. "

    Ok. I'm confused.

    GM said "...the dreaded "gun show loophole" is in fact nothing more than the fact that individuals who are not dealers can and do sell without going through the NICS system..."

    You guys are saying the same thing. "individuals" = "private sellers" GM was pointing out that DEALERS at gun shows had to do the NICS check to sell, but that "individuals" were conducting a private sale, even at a gunshot, and thus did NOT have to run some sort of check.

    You both agree that it is a FACT that individuals, not dealers, selling guns at a gun show do not have to obtain a NICS check.

    You both disagree if this is a good thing, I'm sure, but GM's statement was not "NOT TRUE" it was exactly true and you repeated it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. " Except when they are told that such a statement is disingenuous, and that gun dealers at gun shows operate under exactly the same rules as anywhere else, and the dreaded "gun show loophole" is in fact nothing more than the fact that individuals who are not dealers can and do sell without going through the NICS system just as they may sell through the local paper (and something which is entirely impossible to prevent), then they realize they've been sold a bill of goods to drive an agenda." What GM seemed to be saying is that gun dealers at gun shows operate under exactly the same rules as anywhere else- that part is not true. The private sellers at gun shows do not operate under the same rules as licensed dealers. If that is not what he meant, then he can say so.

    ReplyDelete
  32. There is no "gunshow loophole".

    A "loophole" in a law is a unintentional characteristic of a law that allows the intention of the law to be circumvented without actually breaking the law.

    Not only are private transfers intentionally not covered by the GCA'68, they are specifically omitted by statute within the law. The omission of private transfers is not a "loophole" but rather is a feature of the law. It is intentional and cannot, by definition, be called a "loophole". The intentional continued use of this misnomer is dishonest and meant to mislead.

    There is no need for additional laws to stop dealers from selling without a background check at gun shows. Licensed dealers are required to run background checks at gun shows by NICS and are not exempted in any states. If someone is engaged in buying and selling firearms for profit and is not licensed, they are already prohibited from doing so by federal law. Again, no loophole exists and these dealers are already prohibited by the GCA'68.

    If the goal is to ban all private transfers, then say so. If the goal is to prosecute dealers that are engaged in the business without a license at gun shows, then there are mechanisms in place to do so. But there is no gun show "loophole" to close.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You are absolutely wrong. There is a private seller loophole at gun shows allowing private sellers to see their wares without background checks. That is a fact!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mikeb: I would agree to all that if every gun transfer required a background check and all gun owners were licensed and every gun was registered to a particular owner.

    Didn't the UK have that on all handguns? How did that turn out for UK gunowners?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jay- how DID that turn out for UK gun owners and why are we still discussing this?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Japete,

    What is fact is that private sellers can sell their wares without background checks--I am not arguing that point. But that does not make it a "loophole" unless you define "loophole" as a law you do not like.

    The GCA'68 never intended to restrict private sales nor did it ever intend to require a background check. Those were never the intentions of that law, thus, no loophole.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The fallacious GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE argument is dead. Anyone with a spot of common sense would see that. Guns are sold each and every day by law abiding Citizens in this nation. In most states there is no registration and there is no legal requirement to record sales or purchases between private sellers. In many states there is no requirement even for a bill of sale.

    Calling this a gun show loophole is a load of public relations malarkey.

    It doesn't exist. Just like assault weapons don't exist. There are rifles that look like a military automatic rifle, but they are not. This is saying that if I put a spoiler and a decal on my daughters car she now has a NASCAR racer.

    The fact is simple. Most criminals do not buy guns. They steal them or have someone who is not prohibited buy it for them. Quite often it is Baby's momma, and she does it because if baby's daddy goes to jail or gets killed she is eligible for more AFDC or sssi. If daddy does not get caught then he is stealing more money to take care of her with.

    Ugly facts but this is stuff you can actually findnout about on frontline or CNN.




    Back to an earlier subject. You keep putting down the concept that a car can be a weapon and call it ridiculous yet you admit they kill more people than guns. Negligent use of a car is no different than negligent use of a gun and felonious use of a car is no different than felonious use of a gun. It's all about the intent of the USER and not about the intent of the designer.

    A gas can and a match are not designed to kill, but a madman using one of each killed 87 at the happyland dance club.

    Your logic is lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  38. FatWhiteMAn described the legal definition of a loophole, a law that can be circumvented without actually breaking the law. Private sales are not a loophole, the law says private sales are private. Private sales at a gun show are not a loophole. Just because a bunch of private sellers are grouped together under one roof, the laws suddenly have to change from the way they are at any other time? It doesn't make sense, the laws regulating the sale of guns at a gunshow, are same laws regulating the sale of guns outside a gun show, there is no change in the regulations at a gun show, that lets people get around the law, they are following the law exactly the same in a gun show, as outside one. The only difference between a gun show and ordinary everyday private gun sales, is that more sellers are selling in the same place at the same time.

    And as far as UK's handgun registration, we all know how that turned out; even the competition target shooters had to surrender their handguns for destruction. Therefore, registration is off the table.

    Also, the NRA hasn't made me fearful, paranoid, or anything. I don't need the NRA to make me worry about gun bans, I can already see it with little things here and there to take away this and that, this can't be imported, that definition is expanded to include these, etc. And in NY here we're already limited with a stupid pointless AWB, restricted handguns, poor self defense laws, etc. So we're already fighting gun control legislation here, and we're already fearful of bans, because we can look at them being proposed every year, though most of them die before ever getting to debate.

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  39. P- what kind of statement is this?: " Quite often it is Baby's momma, and she does it because if baby's daddy goes to jail or gets killed she is eligible for more AFDC or sssi. If daddy does not get caught then he is stealing more money to take care of her with. " I take issue with it. It sounds pretty intolerant and maybe even racist. To whom are you referring here? As to the rest of what you said, I'm done going around in circles. The thread has gotten old and not leading anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "how DID that turn out for UK gun owners...?"

    All the registered handguns belonging to the licensed UK gunowners...

    ...were banned and confiscated.

    ReplyDelete
  41. GMC70, You are paranoid and a bad mind reader if you think gun confiscation is my ultimate goal.

    JayF, I think you're just repeating what you read on pro-gun blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "GMC70, You are paranoid and a bad mind reader if you think gun confiscation is my ultimate goal."

    It doesn't matter what you intend, what matters is that gun registration enables confiscation, regardless of the intent of those who propose it.

    Contrary to popular myth, Hitler didn't impose gun registration. It was the elected legislators of the Weimar Republic who did that. I'm sure that it was not their intent that the registry would later be used for the purposes that Hitler used it for.

    Intent doesn't matter.

    If you could guarantee that no future administration would ever use the registry to force disarmament of any portion of the populace, we could talk about the social benefits of registration. We could discuss how registration would be hugely expensive, would impose significant risk on those with no mal intent, and would be of no use whatsoever in controlling crime. But you can provide no such guarantee, so there's little point.

    Registration can be used to enforce confiscation. That makes it permanently beyond the pale.

    ReplyDelete
  43. jdege- whenever Hitler enters the discussion, there is no point in continuing with the narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Would you rather talk about Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Castro? Guevara? Chavez?

    People in positions of power who turn to violence when the world stubbornly refuses to work the way they think it should are all too common.

    "[w]hat country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

    ReplyDelete
  45. Joan,
    While your travel diary is neat, the relevant point is that IL has some of the most restrictive and unconstitutional gun laws on the books and while the goal is to not confiscate guns is it to prevent law abiding people from exercising their rights to bare arms. The goal of both the DC and Chicago city ordinances is to prevent people of limited means in higher crime neighborhoods from being able to defend themselves. Having lived in Chicago for 23 years, we all understood that Police protection was reserved those who contributed to and voted to support the Democrat Machine.

    The fact still remains that IL gun control laws are not effective against crime and homicide and are only partially effective in helping to subjugate its citizens in an effort to maintain single party control despite terrible government performance, massive corruption and low return on tax dollar. The simple question is-how have the oppressive IL gun laws and Chicago city ordinances affected crime--they helped. Its just common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You neglected to mention that many of the guns traced to crimes in Chicago and Illinois are coming from neighboring states where the laws are looser. I know that Chicago is particularly violent and some people may have fear living there. And the government there is certainly not an example of honest and uncorrupt behaviour. But now people can have their guns for self defense. I hope that makes them happier and feeling safer.

    ReplyDelete
  47. GMC70 says

    japete wrote: What GM seemed to be saying is that gun dealers at gun shows operate under exactly the same rules as anywhere else- that part is not true. The private sellers at gun shows do not operate under the same rules as licensed dealers. If that is not what he meant, then he can say so.

    You understood me correctly, japete. Where you're wrong is the state of the law. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, a gun dealer, with a FFL, operates under exactly the same rules at a gun show as he would were he selling a gun at his regular place of business.

    In other words, there is no "gun show loophole." There never was; the term is a scare tactic designed to drive a political agenda.

    Private sellers, whether wandering the halls at a gun show, or in the parking lot, or with their next-door neighbor, or after placing a newspaper ad, can and do sell without the background check. As I understand it, in fact, the NICS system is available ONLY to dealers; a private sell MAY NOT use the system. Were that to change, I know many people who would gladly do a background check before selling a gun to assure that the person they are selling to is not a felon, etc. I would, purely for my piece of mind.

    In other news: why not negotiate what laws would be acceptable, japete? You seek "common sense" (allegedly); political gains necessarily mean mean compromise. So what are you willing to compromise on? The alternative (and I'm sure the truth) is that you expect the liberty community to do all the compromising. That's like the robber promising to only take half your stuff - - - this time.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mikeb: "JayF, I think you're just repeating what you read on pro-gun blogs"

    I much prefer to read anti-gun blogs (hooray for commongunsense).

    Now, what am I supposed to have read on pro-gun blogs? Were all the registered handguns belonging to the licensed UK gunowners NOT banned and confiscated?

    ReplyDelete
  49. You tell us, JayF, were ALL the guns of EVERY kind confiscated in the UK?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mikeb: "were ALL the guns of EVERY kind confiscated in the UK?"

    No -- no place has confiscated every kind of gun from every person. Of course, I never said that.

    The UK followed registration & licensing with the banning and confiscation of handguns as well as pump action & semiauto hunting rifles. They also prohibit gun ownership for self-defense.

    All of that is quite unacceptable to US gunowners, which is why they need to consider that when contemplating the precursor steps of registration & licensing.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jay- and Pat- then why try to make people believe that all guns are banned or were confiscated in the U.K and Australia. That is what you guys try to say no matter what we say.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Then let me say this: ALL guns are NOT banned and confiscated in the U.K and Australia.

    I REJECT claims to the contrary, and urge all gun rights activists to be more accurate in this matter.

    However, these places and others have followed a typical path of following registration & licensing with the banning and confiscation of many (but not all!) guns including popular hunting guns, and in some cases also prohibiting gun ownership for self-defense.

    Since all of that is quite unacceptable to US gunowners, they need to consider that when contemplating the precursor steps of registration & licensing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The question isn't whether some person, somewhere, is able to possess a gun under some circumstances, for some use.

    The question is whether the average person can easily and cheaply obtain an effective, reliable, and easily concealable firearm for personal self-defense.

    The answer is "no" in both the UK and in Australia. It's "no" in ten US states. Your proposed "no-bans" would make it no in all the rest.

    ReplyDelete