PolitiFact | Leffingwell says NRA members support background checks of all gun purchasers

Seriously??

It's "touché".

Scott

Oh gosh, really?

All transactions from an FFL to a private party require a 4473 and background check unless preempted by the purchaser having concealed carry permit, which in AZ requires fingerprinting and an in-depth FBI background check. These requirements exist even at gun shows. An FFL cannot sell a firearm without the 4473, background check (either via NICS or current CCP), logging the transaction, and storing that log per BATFE regulations. Period.

Every gun show I have been to in this state has had far more FFLs than private sales. Private sellers with the means ($) and need (significant collection for sale) to rent a table at at a gun show are in the minority.

Your assertion that "the majority of states waive any paperwork for gun show purchases" is absurd. You are FOS. Sales are either (a) a FFL-to-private-party transaction subject to the restrictions above, or (b) private-party-to-private-party which is legal whether at a gun show or in a 7-11 parking lot.

Oh, I get it, you just play ignorant.....

Scott

Leffingwell? Who the hell is that? Where's his data?

The only person who knows the rolls of the NRA are the NRA. They do not release membership information. The only way to know if a poll of NRA members is accurate is if it has been conducted by the NRA.

He's not playing. Why isn't this PARF?

It was a Johns Hopkins study that should have been linked.

Does the NRA agree with Wayne LaPierre?

I guess one difference we have is that I don't trust much of anything the NRA says, including the number of members it has.

Does the NRA really have more than 4.5 million members? - The Washington Post

So you say private sellers' presence at gun shows is small. And another poster here says it's 50% of vendors. And national media says it ranges around 40% of sellers.

The point is, they are not covered by federal law, and 33 states do not cover private sellers -- at gun shows or anywhere else. Which makes for a loophole.

None of these facts are deniable, so we're down to the number or percentage of private sellers at gun shows. And frankly, it doesn't make much difference, because as I said, in the majority of states, you can walk into a gun show and buy a gun without paperwork. All you have to do is deal with a private party.

Now, some gun shows have their own rules about legal compliance. Some offer 'instant check services.' Want to guess the percentage that don't allow unchecked sales? Not sure that info is out there, except from groups that are paid by one side or the other.

New York state investigators went to a gun show and engaged with private sellers saying they didn't think they could pass a background check. About 40% of the private sellers didn't want to do business with them.

I've never been to a gun show. I have no particular interest in doing so. And if I did, it would probably be in California, where things are more regulated. Not sure what that has to do with background check laws or marketing kiddie rifles.

The point is, my statement was correct. You owe me an apology.

Fail.

I don't entirely disagree with your assessment. But that's what we have: a study from a "gun control group" and the word of the NRA. Pick your poison.

Really? That's what you said? Let's review:

No, it isn't. And I don't, because you are still FOS.

And while you're busy scouring the net for some more data to back up your fallacious assertions, don't forget to read this one as well:

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds - U.S. News

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

Yeah, well not the best wording, but the point is still valid.

33 states exercise no requirements for gun show registration (or any other private party gun sales).

If you assumed I meant the states somehow overruled the FFL dealer restrictions, well, that would be a fairly absurd interpretation on your part.

The point is and was that people can walk into a gun show in most states and walk out with a gun, not having gone through any background check. Pretty plain and simple.

And yes, lots of gun owners support the idea of closing the loophole, at least at gun shows. Just because trading weapons for cash in the 7-11 parking lot is legal most places doesn't mean we shouldn't check everywhere we can.

Man, you have really bought into the media's hype about background checks and the "gun show loophole." BlueSky and I have explained it here many times as clearly as it can be explained. The legality of private, face-face transactions in some states has nothing at all to do with gun shows. You can do those deals anywhere in states that allow them. Why wait for a gun show, pay the admission and parking fees, risk an ATF sting and brave the crowds? I've bought and sold guns at the corner gas station, a church parking lot, a K-Mart parking lot, private homes and one or two at gun shows, but far more at places other than gun shows.

Anyone who can't pass a NICS check is going to get their gun anyway. Have you ever heard a bad guy in a jailhouse interview say it was too hard to get a gun, so he used a knife or billy club?

Why do you have any faith in NICS checks anyway? Plenty of mass shooting nutbags have passed NICS checks with no problem. When's the last time you heard of a mass shooting done with a gun legally bought outside a NICS check?

How is this unclear?

"And yes, lots of gun owners support the idea of closing the loophole, at least at gun shows. Just because trading weapons for cash in the 7-11 parking lot is legal most places doesn't mean we shouldn't check everywhere we can."

The burden that it has to be a "mass shooting" is silly. And then of course quoting "isolated incidents" is silly. So do we just let guns trade as is?

I don't buy into the notion that everything is fine the way it is. Too many people are being shot in this country. And guns are several times more lethal than the other weapons you bring up.

I couldn't care less how many gun owners support background checks. They don't lend any legitimacy to the argument.

The last gun my dad bought was about 15 yrs. before NICS was established. He has one gun left, so he's a gun owner, has never been through a NICS check and is one of those guys with the attitude, "It doesn't affect me, so I'm fine with it." There are many millions just like him. They have no idea what a background check really is, how ineffective they have been, how criminally negligent the feds have been in pursuing prohibited possessers who tried to buy from an FFL and then they hear "gun show loophole," know it has nothing to do with them and so they say, "what the hell?" Same thing with lifelong non-smokers not caring about a hike in the cigarette tax.

No crime has ever been prevented by a NICS check unless the perp happened to die or go to jail before he got the gun through other means. And you probably know that plenty of states don't require NICS checks for guns that are 100 yrs. old or more, or that you can get a C&R FFL for $50 and have C&R guns mailed right to your house sans NICS check or bound book. Do you know what kind of guns you can get with a C&R? Every gun Charles Whitman used. You should worry more about swimming pools, hammers and cars with cell phones. They are far more likley to touch the lives of someone you know.

How do you know that ricky - the 'no crime has ever prevented by a NICS check'.

How many robbers are just robbers and not armed robbers because they know they can't get through an NICS check? Without a gun the autopsy of a robbery is often quite different than robberies committed with a gun.

I mean a blanket statement like that is pretty foolish.There is absolutely no way you or anyone could prove your statement.

I was also interested - lets say one of those 7-Eleven sales you made was to someone who wouldn't have passed an NCIS check (let's say a felon), and they went on to kill dozens of school children with the weapon you sold them. Do you just justify it as 'well if it wasn't me, it would have been someone else who sold them the gun?"

No, it is not an absurd interpretation. What you wrote is EXACTLY the kind of calculated LIE that is being continuously vomited by the American Elected Royalty, their mouthpieces (the media), and their thralls (you and your ilk). All in the furtherance of your goal to utterly disarm the citizenry.

We don't trust you.

I'm still waiting for any intelligence response to this from those thinking the marketing is an issue:

"Toys kill significantly more children than rifles do. Based on your logic, we should not market toys to children because children are not able to make informed rational decisions regarding toys."

The bottom line is that the guns, guns laws, and the gun marketing are not the problem here. Children killing children with guns in play time accidents is purely a problem with the adults that should be locking up these guns or supervising their appropriate use.

Scott

You're very confused. If you read my post as suggesting states rights trump federal laws, that would make me a 10th-er.

You can't have it both ways.

I could care less if responsible people have guns. Not that my actual views influence your assumptions about me in any way.

But you are free to let your fears run wild around giant conspiracies to take your guns.

I've had my fun poking the ants nest, believe it or not, most people (even most here, I bet) don't support marketing weapons to tots.

Oh, so this was all just trolling? You should have said so in the first place. SmileWavy

No, it's a real issue that pissed me off. But to assume real dialog and solutions would flow... no, not that naive.

Nearly every post you make includes the phrase "society has decided", so the obvious inference is that you would legislate just about every facet of our lives.

My statement regarding the training of kids is specifically aimed at your use of the statistics regarding children killed by gunfire. If you are serious about protecting them, training them and teaching them respect for firearms surely is a priority. Or do you think that if kids are never exposed to guns they will be less likely to hurt themselves if they happen to come in contact with one?

I would assert that you could fill a room with school kids, and place a loaded gun on a table, and the kids who have been taught about them will be the least likely to do something stupid with it. The more likely scenario would be that a curios kid without a healthy respect for the gun would be most likely to play with it.

The problem is that irresponsible adults exist - and their actions not only affect their children, but their actions have very real consequences when it comes to others. Again - we all seem to think that the legislation that doesn't allow breweries to market liquor to children (even though they can drink when supervised by parents) is a pretty good idea, but the idea that guns shouldn't be marketed to children is a terrible 'restricting gun rights' issue?

So, what is the difference scott? Do you believe Budweiser should be able to market kiddy cocktails to children using pretty colors and cute cartoon characters? There isn't any difference, other than the drink is far less lethal than a .22 rifle. The kids can't buy the drinks - but they can consume them legally. Just like kids can't buy a gun, but they can use them legally.

I very specifically didn't use a government tie-in into the education part of guns - if I meant that there should be a government forced education system I certainly would have stated that zoa. Don't 'infer' anything it will get you in trouble every time. You could apologize for inferring incorrectly, assuming that I meant something other than what I typed, but wow - that would mean you were culpable for your statements - wouldn't want to go down that road.
As I said - I think every child that is given a crickett should have lots and lots of training and teaching about guns - I truly believe that - I very clearly stated that before. Again - can you read?

I certainly think that before any Crickett is sold the parents and children should attend a 20 hour training course regarding all safety/hazard aspects of the weapon, that is what you are advocating - right Zoa?

And I would say anyone doing that should be instantly hauled away for endangering a child. Why in the world would anyone place a loaded gun anywhere near unsupervised kindergarteners, I don't care if a 5-year-old has had 100 hours of gun safety, 5-year-olds can't make a good decision regarding if they need socks today, let alone decisions regarding loaded guns.

Fox- In my youth, I shot .22s at a summer camp. It was a YMCA or state.
All of them had archery as well.

Should any sport using a potential weapon be restricted from children? (careful now...)

Again - I am not saying we should restrict guns from children, we should restrict marketing those weapons to small children, just like we restrict marketing booze to small children.

So, was the archery unsupervised?

Are you really going to compare alcohol-related deaths to gun-related deaths? Talking about shooting yourself in the foot.....

Scott

Provide examples of firearm marketing to small children. Real examples of where the firearms are marketed to children. An ad showing guns suitable for use children is not the same as marketing to children.

Scott

I am comparing marketing scott - read the post.

Why is marketing guns to small children OK but marketing booze to small children not OK? Or do you think Budweiser should be allowed to market booze to small children scott?

However, if I had to chose between a can of Budweiser on a table in front of 10 5-year-olds and a loaded .44, I think I know which one I would chose - which one would you chose?

Scott - marketing includes a whole lot of things, including making the item extraordinarily appealing to children, the use of cartoon characters, showing other children who get to have the item (they get to have xxxx, why can't I), all very common marketing ploys when marketing anything to children, not just guns.

Nice dodge... so you believe teaching 5-year olds is fruitless? Do you believe this is only applicable to certain subjects, or only subjects that you choose?

As for the 20 hour training course, who would you say should create and administer the course, the parent, or some official entity?

apology? when you quit answering simple questions out of the side of your mouth, maybe

On marketing:
1). Automobiles kill a lot of teenagers each year due to inattention.
Shouldn't advertisements for distraction features such as networking and entertainment be banned or have parental lock-outs?

2). Media represents children in a variety of dangerous or violent situations. A lot of children have been injured or killed trying to recreate stunts in movies, and just look at the recent release Hunger Games where teenagers go around killing one another.
Should violence be presented as entertainment to children at all?

I don't believe I have seen that Verizon video that promotes teens (or anyone for that matter) texting while operating a vehicle, with adult supervision, got link john?

I also haven't seen the Lionsgate ad that is promoting that teenagers play the 'game' for real, while their parents watch and closely monitor their child's progress.

However I have seen the keystone video that promotes putting a loaded weapon in the hands of a 5-year-old, with proper supervision.

What's all the fuss about anyway. Gun crimes have plummeted, not that the media knows.

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study - latimes.com

You're arguments are terrible and your position is unreasonable.

You can't produce a single example of guns being marketed to children in way that should be made illegal, can you?

Scott

Excellent article. Not surprised it has been buried by the media.

Each year more kids are killed by swimming pools than by firearms, but you don't hear anyone screaming for the banishment of deadly assault pools.

Again Scott - I can only state this so many times - The cartoon character on the packaging and in other marketing material - the beanie baby toy tie-ins - the child appealing product (use of color in this case) - the video that shows children whining to get guns from their folks.

Again - if Budweiser marketed grape flavored beer to children using an appealing product (sweet grape flavored beer), packaged it in a can with a cute cartoon character on it, sold cute beanie babies that promoted the product and ran videos that showed 5-year-olds begging their parents to buy grape flavored beer, I think most people would be rather offended. But, that won't happen because Budweiser can't market their product to children, by using any of those same marketing ploys that Keystone uses to market their product to children, even though, in 29 states, parents can buy the product and let their kids drink it legally.

Firearms should not be marketed to appeal to 5-year-olds.