No background checks at gun shows or on internet gun sales

[DaleA]

No background checks at gun shows or on internet gun sales

How can this lie get repeated and repeated and repeated again?

Michael Bloomberg most recently did it at a Fox town hall meeting.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/bloomb...ews-town-hall/

Now Bloomberg certainly knows his stuff about guns, he's been demonizing them for years and at a Fox town hall meeting how did he think he could get away with saying this? Maybe the campaigning had him discombobulated? He certainly can't believe this and I can't believe he thought he could get away with it.

But the anti-gun folk in my home state (Minnesota) also bring this up again and again and again too. Is there ANY way to drive a stake thru the heart of this lie to get rid of it once and for all?

[Mike38]

How can this lie get repeated and repeated and repeated again?

Two reasons:

Greater than 50% of the population believe it is so, because....

The main stream media reports it as so, they are masters at lying when it fits their agenda.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by DaleA

Now Bloomberg certainly knows his stuff about guns, he's been demonizing them for years and at a Fox town hall meeting how did he think he could get away with saying this?

He did get away with saying it. Did anyone at the event question the statement? No? Then everyone who heard it went home believing it.

Did the mainstream media pick up on it and issue a correction? No? Then 90% or better of the people who heard him say it still believe it.

[jmr40]

Because there is just enough truth to it. In my world roughly 1/2 of the tables at gun shows anymore are being run by non-FFL's who are selling used firearms without doing background checks or 4473's. The ones with a FFL are required to have a 4473 and either do a background check or verify a carry license which allows GA residents to forego the background check.

It would be near impossible to buy a new gun through the internet with no background check. But there is nothing illegal about a buyer making contact with an online seller in the classifieds here or any other internet forum getting together for a face to face transaction. At least as long as they are both residents of the same state and were otherwise legally able to buy the gun.

Bloomberg may not be telling the whole truth, but neither are most gun owners.

[krunchnik]

This is one of the lie's that bother me the most-probably because they are repeated the most.

[JERRYS.]

the media is the enemy of the people.

[rickyrick]

There are things in which I’m much more knowledgeable about than guns. I know some about guns for sure. I’m knowledgeable but don’t consider myself an expert. I know media and politicians lie about gun info that I am knowledgeable of.

I have other interest, education and real world experience that I have a significant level of expertise.... and they have told lies and misinformation about those topics too.

So one can only assume that if they lie about many things in which I am knowledgeable of, then they must be lying about some topics in which I am ignorant about. That thought is kinda scary.

Ps, I am not a master of language though lol

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by jmr40

Because there is just enough truth to it. In my world roughly 1/2 of the tables at gun shows anymore are being run by non-FFL's who are selling used firearms without doing background checks or 4473's. The ones with a FFL are required to have a 4473 and either do a background check or verify a carry license which allows GA residents to forego the background check.

It would be near impossible to buy a new gun through the internet with no background check. But there is nothing illegal about a buyer making contact with an online seller in the classifieds here or any other internet forum getting together for a face to face transaction. At least as long as they are both residents of the same state and were otherwise legally able to buy the gun.

Bloomberg may not be telling the whole truth, but neither are most gun owners.

Why do they have to be residents of same state?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by reynolds357

Why do they have to be residents of same state?

Because federal law stipulates that all interstate firearms transfers must go through an FFL. For long guns the FFL can be in the seller's state or the buyer's state. For handguns the FFL must be in the buyer's state.

If the buyer and seller are not residents of the same state, by definition it's an interstate transfer.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by jmr40

Because there is just enough truth to it.
***

Bloomberg may not be telling the whole truth,...

At a Fox News town hall, Bloomberg falsely claimed gun stores are required to perform background checks on sales done at their physical premises but sales conducted elsewhere were exempt from background check requirements.
"You cannot buy a gun in a gun store where they won't do a background check. And all they do is look for those three categories—if you're a minor, if you have psychiatric problems, or if you have a criminal record," Bloomberg said. "The law does not apply to guns sold over the internet or in gun shows."

There is no truth to the bolded assertion. Bloomberg's statement is a candid recitation of the misunderstanding more subtle arguments are intended to produce.

Originally Posted by DaleA

Is there ANY way to drive a stake thru the heart of this lie to get rid of it once and for all?

When someone makes a false claim, the best antidote is a correction. It doesn't have to drip with acrimony or accompany an accusation that the speaker has lied, but one owes it to the others listening to note that the assertion is incorrect.

Appropriate follow-up questions could include:

Have you ever gotten, i.e. received possession of, a firearm through an online transaction?

Have you ever purchased a gun from a licensee at a gun show without passing a BGC?

Be sure you understand what the speaker said before correcting him. I've purchased, i.e. paid, online many times, but merely having paid for it has never actually gotten me the firearm. I always had to provide the license of the federal licensee who would receive the arm. Every time.

[TBM900]

Illusory truth effect

A recent study published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review indicates that, contrary to accepted knowledge, belief in all statements, be they plausible or implausible, increases with repetition.

Psychologist Lisa Fazio of Vanderbilt University, in collaboration with David Rand of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Gordon Pennycook of the University of Regina, Canada, set out to determine whether the illusory truth effect occurs across levels of plausibility, or whether it applies only to ambiguous statements. To find out, the researchers used computational simulations combined with a large online study, completed via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk large-scale testing system.

Five hundred and three participants evaluated 80 statements, designed to cover the full range of plausibility, from definitely false to definitely true. Examples of highly implausible statements included “Elephants weigh less than ants,” and “The Earth is a perfect square.” Highly plausible statements included “The Sistine chapel's ceiling was painted by Michelangelo,” and “Most Americans have ridden in a vehicle of some sort.”

The experiment started with an “exposure phase,” in which 40 of the 80 statements were presented individually to participants, who simply indicated how interesting each statement was on a scale of 1 to 6. Participants then began the “truth rating phase,” in which they had to judge if each of the 80 statements (half of which they saw previously in the exposure phase) were true or not true. The experimenters informed participants that some of the statements were true and others false, and that some of the statements would be repeated from the prior task.

As predicted, the results showed that repeated statements were more likely to be rated as true than novel statements. Further, even though the illusory truth effect was much more easily observed in the middle of the plausibility spectrum than at either extreme, the data did not suggest a significant asymmetry in the relationship between plausibility and the magnitude of the illusory truth effect. In other words, the results were consistent with a consistent boost to belief across all levels of plausibility.

[mehavey]

contrary to accepted knowledge....

Not so.... in fact well known and well demonstrated to be just the opposite.

"...that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

"...people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler: His Life and Legend




(Godwin's law in action, folks.)
And remember boys & girls... Truth is no defense.

[langenc]

This is one lie that is pretty well believed by most and "lots of gun guys."

Kinda of in the category of US being a republic and NOT a democracy..
(is there a difference??) Hard to find out these days.

[Spats McGee]

The term "gun show loophole" has been bouncing around at least as far back as the 1980s. That's the earliest that I remember hearing it, and it may go back farther than that. I've corrected the lie with dozens of people over the years, but I know of no way to fully and finally kill it off. I heard the clip from the town hall meeting and was equally appalled by his claim that gun shows came along after the background check law was enacted. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

[Hal]

How can this lie get repeated and repeated and repeated again?

It's propaganda - a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

It really is as simple as that.

All that's needed is to convince the required number of people in office to either buy into the lie or be pressured into supporting the lie for it to become law.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Because federal law stipulates that all interstate firearms transfers must go through an FFL. For long guns the FFL can be in the seller's state or the buyer's state. For handguns the FFL must be in the buyer's state.

If the buyer and seller are not residents of the same state, by definition it's an interstate transfer.

Never knew that.

[TomNJVA]

I would like to learn more about the so called "gun show loophole" as I have confronted this argument before with some anti friends.

For perspective, I have read on this forum that some prison surveys found that only about 1% of guns used in crimes were obtained from gun shows, so if there is a loophole it's not a very big one. Nonetheless the antis will argue that "just one" is too many.

I have never been to a gun show, preferring to purchase my firearms from a local gun shop. As I understand it, most dealers at gun shows are licensed dealers, so no background check loophole there.

If a non-licensed seller makes a "business" of selling firearms as defined by BAFTE, then they are obligated to get a license, so already a law against that.

That leaves only sellers offering firearms from their private collection and not meeting the definition of "being in the business". I understand such sellers are present at gun shows, and that some gun shows do not require that sales from such private sellers obtain a background check. That does sound like a loophole, albeit a tiny one.

Is this really an issue? Would it be much of a problem to require the small volume of gun show private sales go through a background check by an FFL stationed at the gunshow? This would shut down the "loophole" frenzy, but of course is yet another infringement on our rights. Is it worth it to remove one of the anti's arguments?

The other loophole they argue is private sales not in gun shows but within the state, i.e face-to-face sales of two same state residents. This includes "Internet sales" since existing laws already require that Internet sales out of state go through an FFL. Seems to me that such face-to-face sales are nearly impossible to regulate without registration, which I view as an even bigger infringement of rights. It may be workable, however, if the buyer is pre-approved via a background check or CCP, rather than the firearm itself being registered.

Just trying to understand how to best address these attacks by the antis, as shutting them down with minimal infringement may lessen the pressure on the public who blindly repeat their claims. Yes I understand they will never shut up, but a solution to the clamor from us may be preferable to a solution from politicians.

[DaleA]

That leaves only sellers offering firearms from their private collection and not meeting the definition of "being in the business".

I think that sums up the "gun show loophole" very nicely.

I think jmr40 did a great job of explaining the issue clearly and concisely too.

Some of the problems with the universal background check (UBC), at least in my state, is that:

1. You might not be able to loan a gun to anyone. You might not be able to let anyone shoot one of your guns without you being physically present. That might include immediate family NOT being able to use your guns.

2. Also, at least in my state, if you sell a gun you would have to keep a record of who you sold it too. When asked for how long, proponents of the bill had no answer. Apparently you'd have to keep the record, and be able to access it, forever.

And these are just some of the problems with UBC and as you astutely noted UBC really requires universal registration to be effective.

[44 AMP]

I understand such sellers are present at gun shows, and that some gun shows do not require that sales from such private sellers obtain a background check. That does sound like a loophole, albeit a tiny one.

Frist point, OBEYING THE LAW is NOT a loophole!!!

And that is what gunshows require, obeying the law, what ever it is where they are.

Is this really an issue? Would it be much of a problem to require the small volume of gun show private sales go through a background check by an FFL stationed at the gunshow? This would shut down the "loophole" frenzy, but of course is yet another infringement on our rights. Is it worth it to remove one of the anti's arguments?

When my state passed the (bad) law requiring ALL "transfers" go through an FFL, that's what the gunshows did. One FFL set up at the show and did nothing but process the required background checks for all the non-dealer sales at the show. Usually, the seller paid for that service or split the cost with the buyer.

One more time, obeying the law as written is NOT "exploiting a loophole". The people who claim it is are using THEIR value judgement, and ASSUMING they know better than the legislators who passed the law as it exists. If the law doesn't require a background check, then not getting one is obeying the law. Period.

You might consider asking those people who claim its a loophole if they take tax deductions. If they claim ANY exemptions on their taxes, its just as much a loophole as obeying the law when buying a gun.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

Just trying to understand how to best address these attacks by the antis, as shutting them down with minimal infringement may lessen the pressure on the public who blindly repeat their claims. Yes I understand they will never shut up, but a solution to the clamor from us may be preferable to a solution from politicians.

If you understand that "they will never shut up", then you also understand that your partial submission in response to encroachment on the right can't be a solution to the clamor.

I also wouldn't call making private transfer a crime unless performed through a federal licensee a minimal infringement.

[Kreyzhorse]

One might also argue that you can buy a gun over the internet without a background check. Its done daily on Gun Broker.

I've bought several guns, paid for them up front, all without a background check. Therefore, I've bought guns on the internet without a background check.

However, I've had the background check when I picked them up from my FFL but at that point, they were already bought. That said, I've bought guns on the internet without a background check.

While saying you can buy guns over the internet isn't a lie, it certainly isn't the complete truth.

Most gun owners know it, but some certainly don't and I'd guess that most all non gun owners do not. I'd guess that Bloomberg knows what he isn't saying is the whole truth, but it isn't exactly a whole lie either.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by kreyzhorse

Most gun owners know it, but some certainly don't and I'd guess that most all non gun owners do not. I'd guess that Bloomberg knows what he isn't saying is the whole truth, but it isn't exactly a whole lie either.

It's called a "lie of omission."

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by DaleA

How can this lie get repeated and repeated and repeated again?

Michael Bloomberg most recently did it at a Fox town hall meeting.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/bloomb...ews-town-hall/

...

(my emphasis)
OK I'll play.

Because Politicians and Newspapers have virtually no liability for lying while pushing a political agenda?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

I would like to learn more about the so called "gun show loophole" as I have confronted this argument before with some anti friends.

For perspective, I have read on this forum that some prison surveys found that only about 1% of guns used in crimes were obtained from gun shows, so if there is a loophole it's not a very big one. Nonetheless the antis will argue that "just one" is too many.

I have never been to a gun show, preferring to purchase my firearms from a local gun shop. As I understand it, most dealers at gun shows are licensed dealers, so no background check loophole there.

TomNJVA, when I read the first part of your post, I was fully prepared for a long, amusingly sarcastic paragraph. When you said you'd never been to a gun show, I thought you had to be kidding. I guess not, huh?

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

If a non-licensed seller makes a "business" of selling firearms as defined by BAFTE, then they are obligated to get a license, so already a law against that.

Yes, this is true, but the antigunners skip over that part. They routinely claim that background checks are not required at gun shows. Period. Note that Michael Bloomberg recently claimed that background checks were not required at gun shows because they (guns shows) came along after the law requiring BGCs. I don't know how long gun shows have been around, but: (1) I know they've been around since before the Brady Handgun Act; and (2) I suspect they've been around since before the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

That leaves only sellers offering firearms from their private collection and not meeting the definition of "being in the business". I understand such sellers are present at gun shows, and that some gun shows do not require that sales from such private sellers obtain a background check. That does sound like a loophole, albeit a tiny one.

First, it's not a loophole. It's the way the law was designed and written: to exempt private, intrastate transfers from the BGC requirement. Second, "loophole" implies something shady, but even if it were a loophole, well .... Things in the loophole are still legal.

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

Is this really an issue? Would it be much of a problem to require the small volume of gun show private sales go through a background check by an FFL stationed at the gunshow? This would shut down the "loophole" frenzy, but of course is yet another infringement on our rights. Is it worth it to remove one of the anti's arguments?

Sorry, but I'm a 'not one more inch' guy. If the antis want to shut down the folks who repeatedly sell 'from their private collection' at gun shows, then they need to prosecute them for engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license. They do not need to require me (who has broken no law in this regard) to go to extra time, expense and hassle to buy or sell a gun.

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

The other loophole they argue is private sales not in gun shows but within the state, i.e face-to-face sales of two same state residents. This includes "Internet sales" since existing laws already require that Internet sales out of state go through an FFL. Seems to me that such face-to-face sales are nearly impossible to regulate without registration, which I view as an even bigger infringement of rights. It may be workable, however, if the buyer is pre-approved via a background check or CCP, rather than the firearm itself being registered.

Just trying to understand how to best address these attacks by the antis, as shutting them down with minimal infringement may lessen the pressure on the public who blindly repeat their claims. Yes I understand they will never shut up, but a solution to the clamor from us may be preferable to a solution from politicians.

See my notes above about private, intrastate sales. They apply to this, as well.

The antis are like The Terminator. They will never rest. They will never give up. If you give them an inch, they'll take it and immediately claim that you should have given them the next one.

No, not one more inch, says I.

[Tom Servo]

Would it be much of a problem to require the small volume of gun show private sales go through a background check by an FFL stationed at the gunshow?

Possibly not, but why should we do so in the first place? When the Brady Act was pushed through, we were promised it would result in drastic crime reductions. To this day, I have seen no data that shows any causal relationship between the law and even a modest drop in crime.

Background checks simply don't work. As such, expanding them in any way is a non-starter.

This would shut down the "loophole" frenzy, but of course is yet another infringement on our rights. Is it worth it to remove one of the anti's arguments?

No, because they'd just come up with another frenzy. That's what they do:

1. wait for a tragedy
2. call it a "crisis"
3. be the first ones ready with a "solution"
4. claim we need more of their "solutions" when that one doesn't work

They've been doing this for decades. Giving them anything they want only emboldens them and shifts the line further.