Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

gun show loop hole, fact or fiction?

kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 12:59:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
there are only 3 ways to purchase a firearm that I can think of.

Dealer (background check required)
Private (background check no required)
Straw (illegal)

what is this loophole people talk about, give an example how a sale does not fit into one of these 3 categories, i say there is no loophole and is a made up lie to scare and manipulate the public.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:48:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 12:59:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
there are only 3 ways to purchase a firearm that I can think of.

Dealer (background check required)
Private (background check no required)
Straw (illegal)

what is this loophole people talk about, give an example how a sale does not fit into one of these 3 categories, i say there is no loophole and is a made up lie to scare and manipulate the public.

I buy a gun, privately at a gun show from another person. I then turn around and just as privately sell that gun to some one else whom I am not obligated run a background check on. A straw purchase infers you are acting as an intermediary for a specific purpose, however private trades could just as easily crop up as a matter of researched circumstance as opposed to deliberate straw purchases.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:57:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:48:50 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 12:59:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
there are only 3 ways to purchase a firearm that I can think of.

Dealer (background check required)
Private (background check no required)
Straw (illegal)

what is this loophole people talk about, give an example how a sale does not fit into one of these 3 categories, i say there is no loophole and is a made up lie to scare and manipulate the public.


I buy a gun, privately at a gun show from another person. I then turn around and just as privately sell that gun to some one else whom I am not obligated run a background check on. A straw purchase infers you are acting as an intermediary for a specific purpose, however private trades could just as easily crop up as a matter of researched circumstance as opposed to deliberate straw purchases.

ok so your example is a private sale, 2 of them to be precise, but no loophole is indicated. If you where in a state that required a background check for private sales as well, you have broken the law. Either way where is the loophole?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:59:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:57:41 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:48:50 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 12:59:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
there are only 3 ways to purchase a firearm that I can think of.

Dealer (background check required)
Private (background check no required)
Straw (illegal)

what is this loophole people talk about, give an example how a sale does not fit into one of these 3 categories, i say there is no loophole and is a made up lie to scare and manipulate the public.


I buy a gun, privately at a gun show from another person. I then turn around and just as privately sell that gun to some one else whom I am not obligated run a background check on. A straw purchase infers you are acting as an intermediary for a specific purpose, however private trades could just as easily crop up as a matter of researched circumstance as opposed to deliberate straw purchases.

ok so your example is a private sale, 2 of them to be precise, but no loophole is indicated. If you where in a state that required a background check for private sales as well, you have broken the law. Either way where is the loophole?

If I am not in a state that requires a background check, that is the loop hole. Any of those private deals could very well be to a person whom has no right to own a fire arm, and the seller has no onus to conduct a background check.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:23:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 12:59:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
there are only 3 ways to purchase a firearm that I can think of.

Dealer (background check required)
Private (background check no required)
Straw (illegal)

what is this loophole people talk about, give an example how a sale does not fit into one of these 3 categories, i say there is no loophole and is a made up lie to scare and manipulate the public.

Sure it exists. It is a private sale. That is the loophole. They say "gun show" because many (not as much now) gun show sales happened this way - and some still do. So long as the seller does not reach the threshold for dealer, he is not required to run the background check. That is the entire loophole.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:28:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:59:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am not in a state that requires a background check, that is the loop hole. Any of those private deals could very well be to a person whom has no right to own a fire arm, and the seller has no onus to conduct a background check.

I guess I didn't define loophole
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"they exploited tax loopholes"
synonyms:means of evasion, means of avoidance

what law is being avoided or how are they evading the law since there isn't one? Your scenario of transactions where all legal I think, so not really a loop hole.
I understand you think every state should require a background check for all transfers but that is a separate issue and not a loophole. There's already laws against people trying to buy firearms who aren't allowed to by law. Breaking the law isn't a loophole it's illegal.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:37:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:28:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:59:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am not in a state that requires a background check, that is the loop hole. Any of those private deals could very well be to a person whom has no right to own a fire arm, and the seller has no onus to conduct a background check.

I guess I didn't define loophole
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"they exploited tax loopholes"
synonyms:means of evasion, means of avoidance

what law is being avoided or how are they evading the law since there isn't one? Your scenario of transactions where all legal I think, so not really a loop hole.
I understand you think every state should require a background check for all transfers but that is a separate issue and not a loophole. There's already laws against people trying to buy firearms who aren't allowed to by law. Breaking the law isn't a loophole it's illegal.

I think it is in the spirit of breaking the law. The private sale was/is allowed for family members etc. (this gets mentioned all the time by gun-supporters), but it is being used for commercial transactions. That is past the intent, right? Not breaking the law, but skirting the law.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:40:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:28:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:59:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am not in a state that requires a background check, that is the loop hole. Any of those private deals could very well be to a person whom has no right to own a fire arm, and the seller has no onus to conduct a background check.

I guess I didn't define loophole
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"they exploited tax loopholes"
synonyms:means of evasion, means of avoidance

what law is being avoided or how are they evading the law since there isn't one?

They're avoiding going through a background check. How is this not self evident?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:44:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:23:24 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 12:59:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
there are only 3 ways to purchase a firearm that I can think of.

Dealer (background check required)
Private (background check no required)
Straw (illegal)

what is this loophole people talk about, give an example how a sale does not fit into one of these 3 categories, i say there is no loophole and is a made up lie to scare and manipulate the public.

Sure it exists. It is a private sale. That is the loophole. They say "gun show" because many (not as much now) gun show sales happened this way - and some still do. So long as the seller does not reach the threshold for dealer, he is not required to run the background check. That is the entire loophole.

claiming Afluensa as a defense is a loophole, avoiding jail because you ate too many Twinkies and killed someone is a loophole (think that was in California)
So in the example given there are already laws to cover every possible "what if" again criminals don't follow laws and one may argue the laws aren't strict enough etc but all the bases are covered, no loophole
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:46:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:44:03 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:23:24 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 12:59:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
there are only 3 ways to purchase a firearm that I can think of.

Dealer (background check required)
Private (background check no required)
Straw (illegal)

what is this loophole people talk about, give an example how a sale does not fit into one of these 3 categories, i say there is no loophole and is a made up lie to scare and manipulate the public.

Sure it exists. It is a private sale. That is the loophole. They say "gun show" because many (not as much now) gun show sales happened this way - and some still do. So long as the seller does not reach the threshold for dealer, he is not required to run the background check. That is the entire loophole.

claiming Afluensa as a defense is a loophole, avoiding jail because you ate too many Twinkies and killed someone is a loophole (think that was in California)
So in the example given there are already laws to cover every possible "what if" again criminals don't follow laws and one may argue the laws aren't strict enough etc but all the bases are covered, no loophole

Sounds like semantics. There was a law (background checks) that allowed for something (personal sales) and is now being used outside its intent (loophole).
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:47:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:40:48 PM, stealspell wrote:

They're avoiding going through a background check. How is this not self evident?

adults are having a conversation here go play in the other room and if your good we'll get you some milk and cookies.
where did you miss that NOT ALL STATES REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRIVATE SALES? I really do try to avoid engaging you because you just like to argue which is different than discuss and debate, wish you'd learn the difference and grow up.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:50:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:28:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:59:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am not in a state that requires a background check, that is the loop hole. Any of those private deals could very well be to a person whom has no right to own a fire arm, and the seller has no onus to conduct a background check.

I guess I didn't define loophole
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"they exploited tax loopholes"
synonyms:means of evasion, means of avoidance

what law is being avoided or how are they evading the law since there isn't one? Your scenario of transactions where all legal I think, so not really a loop hole.
I understand you think every state should require a background check for all transfers but that is a separate issue and not a loophole. There's already laws against people trying to buy firearms who aren't allowed to by law. Breaking the law isn't a loophole it's illegal.

The evasion is on behalf of the would be criminal, as he is not going to a licensed dealer, he is exploiting a way to get from a licensed dealer what he/she wants. In certain gun sales, there is an obligation to check an ID. In other gun sales there isn't. That is an avoidance of something, correct? a "Loop hole"?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:52:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:47:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:40:48 PM, stealspell wrote:

They're avoiding going through a background check. How is this not self evident?

adults are having a conversation here go play in the other room and if your good we'll get you some milk and cookies.
where did you miss that NOT ALL STATES REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRIVATE SALES? I really do try to avoid engaging you because you just like to argue which is different than discuss and debate, wish you'd learn the difference and grow up.

Kevin has a criminal record and lives in State X. He goes to State Y that does not "REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRIVATE SALES" and returns to State X.

That's called a loophole.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:57:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:46:50 PM, TBR wrote:
Sounds like semantics. There was a law (background checks) that allowed for something (personal sales) and is now being used outside its intent (loophole).

yeah I'm really just trying to understand people's perception about it. Breaking the law isn't a loophole, if laws are inadequate or lacking all together that's a separate issue.

Private seller has no reason to believe buyer can't have a gun, sells it to buyer, buyer is in fact not able to legally own a gun. Seller has not broken any laws, Buyer has.

Private seller is a criminal in possession of a gun illegally, sells to Private Buyer who can own a gun. Seller has broken the law, Buyer has not.

Private seller is a criminal in possession of a gun illegally, Buyer is criminal who can't have guns. Both have broken the law.

How is breaking the law a loophole? To me a loophole as you kind of said is a way to get around something, they aren't getting around anything, they are breaking clear laws.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:04:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:57:01 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:46:50 PM, TBR wrote:
Sounds like semantics. There was a law (background checks) that allowed for something (personal sales) and is now being used outside its intent (loophole).

yeah I'm really just trying to understand people's perception about it. Breaking the law isn't a loophole, if laws are inadequate or lacking all together that's a separate issue.

Private seller has no reason to believe buyer can't have a gun, sells it to buyer, buyer is in fact not able to legally own a gun. Seller has not broken any laws, Buyer has.


Well, here in lies the problem, right? If the seller is under no pressure to do the background check, he has not broken a law, but has skirted the intent of the law. That is, he is selling to some unknown party, not some necessarily "personal" to him.

Unless you are calming that the allowance in the law was for this sort of commercial transaction (it was not) then the loophole is born.

As first put into law, the threshold was very low. Something like four guns per year. Now (thanks NRA) it is so loose. Something like majority of income, and that excludes the "accessories", so I could sell 30k in guns, and as long as I sell 31k in other crap I am fine.

Private seller is a criminal in possession of a gun illegally, sells to Private Buyer who can own a gun. Seller has broken the law, Buyer has not.

Private seller is a criminal in possession of a gun illegally, Buyer is criminal who can't have guns. Both have broken the law.

How is breaking the law a loophole? To me a loophole as you kind of said is a way to get around something, they aren't getting around anything, they are breaking clear laws.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:08:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:50:10 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:28:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:59:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am not in a state that requires a background check, that is the loop hole. Any of those private deals could very well be to a person whom has no right to own a fire arm, and the seller has no onus to conduct a background check.

I guess I didn't define loophole
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"they exploited tax loopholes"
synonyms:means of evasion, means of avoidance

what law is being avoided or how are they evading the law since there isn't one? Your scenario of transactions where all legal I think, so not really a loop hole.
I understand you think every state should require a background check for all transfers but that is a separate issue and not a loophole. There's already laws against people trying to buy firearms who aren't allowed to by law. Breaking the law isn't a loophole it's illegal.

The evasion is on behalf of the would be criminal, as he is not going to a licensed dealer, he is exploiting a way to get from a licensed dealer what he/she wants. In certain gun sales, there is an obligation to check an ID. In other gun sales there isn't. That is an avoidance of something, correct? a "Loop hole"?

no that's still breaking the law, how is that avoiding to break the law?
going to another state I think is considered gun trafficking, regardless it's not a loophole when you directly break the law. In many cases people use loophole to get out of things, like traffic tickets, loophole are excuses as to why it doesn't apply to the given facts.
here's a loophole, you can't have a full auto w/o a special federal licence, I think that's common knowledge, now google a video on bump fire stock, totally legal but I would accept that is a loophole.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:13:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:08:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:50:10 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:28:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:59:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am not in a state that requires a background check, that is the loop hole. Any of those private deals could very well be to a person whom has no right to own a fire arm, and the seller has no onus to conduct a background check.

I guess I didn't define loophole
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"they exploited tax loopholes"
synonyms:means of evasion, means of avoidance

what law is being avoided or how are they evading the law since there isn't one? Your scenario of transactions where all legal I think, so not really a loop hole.
I understand you think every state should require a background check for all transfers but that is a separate issue and not a loophole. There's already laws against people trying to buy firearms who aren't allowed to by law. Breaking the law isn't a loophole it's illegal.

The evasion is on behalf of the would be criminal, as he is not going to a licensed dealer, he is exploiting a way to get from a licensed dealer what he/she wants. In certain gun sales, there is an obligation to check an ID. In other gun sales there isn't. That is an avoidance of something, correct? a "Loop hole"?

no that's still breaking the law, how is that avoiding to break the law?

The secondary gun seller is under no obligation to check a background. Its a private sale.

going to another state I think is considered gun trafficking, regardless it's not a loophole when you directly break the law. In many cases people use loophole to get out of things, like traffic tickets, loophole are excuses as to why it doesn't apply to the given facts.

The "given fact" (in this context) is that a gun buyer should be checked out, and there is no specific rules stating they should be checked out, that is what constitutes the evasion.

here's a loophole, you can't have a full auto w/o a special federal licence, I think that's common knowledge, now google a video on bump fire stock, totally legal but I would accept that is a loophole.

... that is an automatic weapon in the same fashion that a mouse trap is an IED. The gun is not truly automatic, it simulates the concept by essentially shaking the user.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:20:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:13:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

The "given fact" (in this context) is that a gun buyer should be checked out, and there is no specific rules stating they should be checked out, that is what constitutes the evasion.

how can you evade something that doesn't exist, your opinion that the buyer should be checked out isn't relevant, if there is no law to the issue you can't evade it and you don't need a loophole around it right?

here's a loophole, you can't have a full auto w/o a special federal licence, I think that's common knowledge, now google a video on bump fire stock, totally legal but I would accept that is a loophole.

... that is an automatic weapon in the same fashion that a mouse trap is an IED. The gun is not truly automatic, it simulates the concept by essentially shaking the user.

Oh make no mistake I totally know how and why it's legal, how it works etc, this is only one of many products to "simulate" as you said. Point is if you can simulate something why is the original illegal? Illegal drugs are "simulated" synthetic etc and yet are still illegal. So how does one "simulate" an illegal thing and make the simulated thing legal? with a loophole.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:26:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:20:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:13:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

The "given fact" (in this context) is that a gun buyer should be checked out, and there is no specific rules stating they should be checked out, that is what constitutes the evasion.

how can you evade something that doesn't exist, your opinion that the buyer should be checked out isn't relevant, if there is no law to the issue you can't evade it and you don't need a loophole around it right?

If I am buying a gun from a "dealer", I DO need to get checked. What is the difference, ultimately between a private transaction and a dealer?


here's a loophole, you can't have a full auto w/o a special federal licence, I think that's common knowledge, now google a video on bump fire stock, totally legal but I would accept that is a loophole.

... that is an automatic weapon in the same fashion that a mouse trap is an IED. The gun is not truly automatic, it simulates the concept by essentially shaking the user.

Oh make no mistake I totally know how and why it's legal, how it works etc, this is only one of many products to "simulate" as you said. Point is if you can simulate something why is the original illegal? Illegal drugs are "simulated" synthetic etc and yet are still illegal. So how does one "simulate" an illegal thing and make the simulated thing legal? with a loophole.

Ownership (unlike the auto-fire) is not simulated.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:34:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:08:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:50:10 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:28:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:59:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am not in a state that requires a background check, that is the loop hole. Any of those private deals could very well be to a person whom has no right to own a fire arm, and the seller has no onus to conduct a background check.

I guess I didn't define loophole
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"they exploited tax loopholes"
synonyms:means of evasion, means of avoidance

what law is being avoided or how are they evading the law since there isn't one? Your scenario of transactions where all legal I think, so not really a loop hole.
I understand you think every state should require a background check for all transfers but that is a separate issue and not a loophole. There's already laws against people trying to buy firearms who aren't allowed to by law. Breaking the law isn't a loophole it's illegal.

The evasion is on behalf of the would be criminal, as he is not going to a licensed dealer, he is exploiting a way to get from a licensed dealer what he/she wants. In certain gun sales, there is an obligation to check an ID. In other gun sales there isn't. That is an avoidance of something, correct? a "Loop hole"?

no that's still breaking the law, how is that avoiding to break the law?
going to another state I think is considered gun trafficking, regardless it's not a loophole when you directly break the law. In many cases people use loophole to get out of things, like traffic tickets, loophole are excuses as to why it doesn't apply to the given facts.

Its not breaking the law. As you quoted already - "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." It is a way to subvert the intent of the law.

here's a loophole, you can't have a full auto w/o a special federal licence, I think that's common knowledge, now google a video on bump fire stock, totally legal but I would accept that is a loophole.

Right. It is not even, by my estimation, a better example. The intent of the law on full-autos is still valid, but you CAN mimic the action.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:39:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Can you, to move the conversation forward, explain what exactly you are after? I think everyone agrees that these sort of sales are NOT illegal, and there-in is the issue.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:45:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:04:43 PM, TBR wrote:

Well, here in lies the problem, right? If the seller is under no pressure to do the background check, he has not broken a law, but has skirted the intent of the law. That is, he is selling to some unknown party, not some necessarily "personal" to him.

no pressure because he doesn't have a legal duty as there is no law. I'm not saying what a seller should do, merely addressing the legal obligation or lack there of.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:47:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:45:51 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:04:43 PM, TBR wrote:

Well, here in lies the problem, right? If the seller is under no pressure to do the background check, he has not broken a law, but has skirted the intent of the law. That is, he is selling to some unknown party, not some necessarily "personal" to him.

no pressure because he doesn't have a legal duty as there is no law. I'm not saying what a seller should do, merely addressing the legal obligation or lack there of.

Well then, I think we are all in agreement.

1) The seller is not obligated to do the background check.
2) The seller is not breaking the law.
3) This is subverting the intent of the law.

Right?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:48:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:26:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am buying a gun from a "dealer", I DO need to get checked. What is the difference, ultimately between a private transaction and a dealer?

I believe that legal debate has been answered in the courts and settled, but not what I was asking.

Oh make no mistake I totally know how and why it's legal, how it works etc, this is only one of many products to "simulate" as you said. Point is if you can simulate something why is the original illegal? Illegal drugs are "simulated" synthetic etc and yet are still illegal. So how does one "simulate" an illegal thing and make the simulated thing legal? with a loophole.

Ownership (unlike the auto-fire) is not simulated.

um what?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:51:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:39:15 PM, TBR wrote:
Can you, to move the conversation forward, explain what exactly you are after? I think everyone agrees that these sort of sales are NOT illegal, and there-in is the issue.

I think these terms are careless, useless and yet effective ways to scare and promote fear. Rather than addressing concerns and issues directly these sort of tactics are used and I think are counter productive.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:53:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Whether the loophole exists or not the fact is more criminals get guns from gun and pawn shops than a gun show. The most preveleant means of getting guns is either straw purchase, stealing, or black market.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:56:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:51:01 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:39:15 PM, TBR wrote:
Can you, to move the conversation forward, explain what exactly you are after? I think everyone agrees that these sort of sales are NOT illegal, and there-in is the issue.

I think these terms are careless, useless and yet effective ways to scare and promote fear. Rather than addressing concerns and issues directly these sort of tactics are used and I think are counter productive.

I see.

No, I don't think so. I think everyone knows the basics of this issue. In some ways, I find this similar to gun-supporters getting hot and bothered over people who mix-up "semi auto" and "full auto", or assault rifle vs AR. Most people understand this just fine. The truth is, the indignant attitudes from both is at issue, not understanding.

For example. I have seen many conversations where (women particularly) are bullied out based on trivia over caliber or nomenclature (clip vs. magazine). This is not fair, and does no good. She understands what she is talking about just fine, and the other guy is just being a bully.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:12:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:48:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:26:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

If I am buying a gun from a "dealer", I DO need to get checked. What is the difference, ultimately between a private transaction and a dealer?

I believe that legal debate has been answered in the courts and settled, but not what I was asking.

But it is what I am asking. If there is no ultimate difference, that being the person still gets a firearm, then you have your application of a loop hole.

Oh make no mistake I totally know how and why it's legal, how it works etc, this is only one of many products to "simulate" as you said. Point is if you can simulate something why is the original illegal? Illegal drugs are "simulated" synthetic etc and yet are still illegal. So how does one "simulate" an illegal thing and make the simulated thing legal? with a loophole.

Ownership (unlike the auto-fire) is not simulated.

um what?

The auto fire analogy you have presented is not actually auto, its simulated, it requires something other than an actual true automatic fire to function. Gun ownership/purchase in this instance is not simulated, the people in question are walking away with a weapon.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:18:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:47:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:45:51 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:04:43 PM, TBR wrote:

Well, here in lies the problem, right? If the seller is under no pressure to do the background check, he has not broken a law, but has skirted the intent of the law. That is, he is selling to some unknown party, not some necessarily "personal" to him.

no pressure because he doesn't have a legal duty as there is no law. I'm not saying what a seller should do, merely addressing the legal obligation or lack there of.

Well then, I think we are all in agreement.

1) The seller is not obligated to do the background check.
2) The seller is not breaking the law.
3) This is subverting the intent of the law.

Right?

no, it's breaking the law, the law is clear, just because you choose to break it or ignore it doesn't mean you found a loophole.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:23:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:18:42 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:47:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:45:51 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:04:43 PM, TBR wrote:

Well, here in lies the problem, right? If the seller is under no pressure to do the background check, he has not broken a law, but has skirted the intent of the law. That is, he is selling to some unknown party, not some necessarily "personal" to him.

no pressure because he doesn't have a legal duty as there is no law. I'm not saying what a seller should do, merely addressing the legal obligation or lack there of.

Well then, I think we are all in agreement.

1) The seller is not obligated to do the background check.
2) The seller is not breaking the law.
3) This is subverting the intent of the law.

Right?

no, it's breaking the law, the law is clear, just because you choose to break it or ignore it doesn't mean you found a loophole.

Wait, you are saying they are breaking the law?