For years, I’ve taken the position that the “gun show loophole” was basically irrelevant to gun policy in the US, and was simply another effort by people whose core policy was to ban any guns any where as soon as they could to add another layer of unneeded regulation.
But I’ve gotta say that if the facts are as Bloomberg’s undercover investigators set out – that 19 of 30 private (non-FFL) gun show vendors actually sold guns to people who commented to them that “I probably couldn’t pass a background check” – there’s a real problem and a regulatory answer (requiring all sales to go through FFL-type paperwork, if not through FFL’s) may be called for.
I know this is heretical, but watch the videos for yourself. As a member of the gun community, I’m certainly wary of Bloomberg’s stance and actions on firearms. But I’m, flat disgusted with what I see on these videos.
Start throwing rocks if you will, but watch the videos and look in the mirror first.
Leaving aside the fact that I wouldn’t trust Bloomberg or MAIG as far as I could throw them…
Sure, it’s a problem if there are sellers out there who don’t care if their purchasers are felons, but you know what? Back in the good old days, people like the 348-guns-a-year seller were FFL’s because it was easy to get an FFL if you were an avid collector, part-time seller, etc. Since the early 90’s (or maybe before) the ATF has made a concerted effort to get rid of all the “kitchen table” FFL’s. If they hadn’t done that, they could require all these guys to do background checks because they’d still be FFL’s.
… OK, back to Bloomberg. I think they are flat-out lying about the percentages, by as much as an order of magnitude.
Kind of like the ACORN videos, it’s hard to argue with what you see.
I’d say that making sure it’s easier and not too expensive to become an FFL would be a excellent first step. It will actually perform a valuable sort… the ones who are serious, and want to do it right, will sign up. The ones that don’t, have kind of sorted themselves, and then if you want to tighten regulations, it’s a more justified case.
It is kind of like the ACORN videos, except that this is the only non-left website I know of that has mentioned them (major props to Mr Danziger), while the ACORN pimp-and-ho show was on continuous loop. Any thoughts on that?
Oh, and the ACORN volunteer contacted police afterwards.
I’ve been persuaded by gun advocates that instead of blindly passing more confiscatory or prohibitionist laws, we need a better understanding of how disqualified persons acquire guns. I think this video gives us a hint as to one quite easy vector, and don’t you wonder how profitable it is to be a sham private seller, and how profitable it is for gun manufacturers to supply them?
_”It is kind of like the ACORN videos, except that this is the only non-left website I know of that has mentioned them (major props to Mr Danziger), while the ACORN pimp-and-ho show was on continuous loop. Any thoughts on that?”_
Sure- the gun story will run on Nightline and a couple dozen major media sources. The ACORN story wasn’t even _known_ by people like Charlie Gibson until it circled the internets like 1 billion times. Breaking through the ivory in those towers takes huge amounts of repetition until a critical mass is reached.
Also- these are individuals committing criminal acts with no connection aside from a profession. ACORN is a tax funded political organization displaying signs of severe _institutional_ dysfunction or mismanagement. I’m not sure why left leaners have trouble acknowledging that things that happen with our tax dollars and in our names differ from what individuals do of their own accord.
_”Oh, and the ACORN volunteer contacted police afterwards.”_
After what, the video broke? And which volunteer? They stung about a dozen. This revisionist idea that the ACORN nuts were playing along just doesn’t stand up to a simple viewing of the video.
The Bloomberg gun video has been out for two days. I did see articles in the New York papers. When it starts showing on Nightline and all the major network news shows, can you drop a comment here? I don’t own a TV.
I’m afraid I have an unsympathetic explanation for why gun advocates are ignoring this.
CNN’s had an “article”:http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/07/new.york.gun.show.sting/index.html?section=cnn_latest up for 2 days.
“msnbc”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33211530/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
“fox”:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561881,00.html
“npr”:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113594508&ft=1&f=1001
The MSM certainly isn’t ignoring this the way they ignored ACORN until they were shamed into covering it (sort of).
This guy is talking about it, and a lot of gun bloggers linked to expanded on his comments.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/10/07/bloomberg-video/#comments
http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/10/08/more-on-bloomberg/
It is a slickly produced video that is hard to tease out what is really happening. I can tell you that the “30% of illegal gun are related to gun shows” is a misrepresentation of the ATF data. But no one will call them on that, and the people they are selling to don’t care.