That is some next level .... whatever he has going on (Mass shooting in Cali)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
I'm going to expand on Ensis post. We're rated on severity of mental "stress" (PTSD). We're being, lack of word, tracked by US Military and Veteran Affair. Our medical records are on MedPro. Our mental health records is under HIPAA same as everyone else.

Where does one draw the line on who can own weapons and who can't.
Notionally say if an individual is 40% disable due to PTSD do you allow him/her own a weapon? Would their right be revoked?

Apparently, with the VA, that line is drawn when the Vet can "no longer keep track of their own finances"... which seems a bit unfair to some of us. (My wife, in my family, takes care of most all of the finances... I CAN do it myself, but she's been doin it since we got married)

It is an interesting idea for sure. I honestly don't think there can be a hard line in the sand, and should probably be as it is now, where if the MH pro feels that there is legitimate or significant threat of harm/violence then they are bound by law to report it to outside agencies.

**sebster**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I agree. I think that line's always going to be blurry with any issue, but I don't think "people's beliefs don't affect their actions at all, they just Go Insane and then pick a random reason from their beliefs" is a reasonable point of view - I think it's a point of view designed to shut down conversation about issues the person advancing it doesn't want discussed.

That's true. I guess at the end of the day we need to recognise both parts work together, that bitter philosophies like the 'nice guy' stuff play off of mentally disturbed people to get the results like we've seen with this event.

That seems to be a pretty common thread in these shootings, where the murderer will have had a bunch of particular political views and people sympathetic to those views will be trying to avoid the association.

I think what's sparked a lot of the conversation here is that a lot of the people holding similar views didn't look to distance themselves. The #yesallwomen thing seemed to be full of people trying to claim there was some reasonable basis at the bottom of this guy's frustration.

The only time I can think of that people didn't run at full steam away from the murderous nut was when that crazy flew a plane in to the IRS building, and even then most of them were doing it at least in a half joking manner.

But the cool thing is, trying to combat awful attitudes to relationships and sex like he had gets us much broader benefits as a society than "people won't go on shooting sprees" so we can probably just go along with that and it'll be fine anyway.

Yeah, really good point.

In a general sense I don't think any mass shooting in the US is a good incident to push for gun control because AFAIK their rate of people being killed by guns is so high that mass shootings don't raise it by all that much. They have so much cultural baggage around it that they need to work through before they can even have a sensible conversation on the issue, and there's a lot standing in the way of that.

But come on, the people he killed without the gun lived with him and may have been asleep at the time of the attack. The three he killed who didn't were all shot to death, and he shot an additional eight people. The only reason that doesn't seem nuts is because it's comparatively tame for a US shooting spree.

All true. And one of my biggest frustrations with the anti-gun movement is their reliance on media heavy single events like spree killings, while shying away from less emotive, less sensation but far more important reality of the bulk of gun murders. And as a result they try to write laws about big, scary assault weapons, and then look shocked when those don't do anything to bring down the murder rates.

Anyhow, my point really on not using this particular killing to advance the anti-gun clause is that there's an easy 'he killed three people with a knife' escape clause to be thrown out by any pro-gun person. It makes this a much harder instance on which to effectively make any kind of anti-gun argument. Whether such an argument should ever be made is a whole other argument.

It's sort of mental health related but I didn't actually realise prostitution was illegal in the US until discussing this with Americans.

I think like a lot of places around the world it is technically illegal but the reality on the ground can be very different, with informal (or even semi-formal) understandings in place that as long as it is kept of the streets police will turn a blind eye.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
The French military has been pretty successful post-Vietnam.

It was pretty successful pre-Republic as well. They just had a really gakky century, and it just happens those are the years everyone talks about.

**Dreadclaw69**

Jihadin wrote:
Rutger professor take on this;

“Welp. Another young white guy has decided that his disillusionment with his life should become somebody else’s problem,” she begins. “How many times must troubled young white men engage in these terroristic acts that make public space unsafe for everyone before we admit that white male privilege kills?”

She then states, “Black men are not rolling onto college campuses and into movie theaters on a regular basis to shoot large amounts of people. Usually, the young men who do that are white, male, heterosexual, and middle-class.”

I thought I read that his mother was East Asian. Are we now adding 'White Asian' to 'White Hispanic' for when bad things happen?

sebster wrote:
All true. And one of my biggest frustrations with the anti-gun movement is their reliance on media heavy single events like spree killings, while shying away from less emotive, less sensation but far more important reality of the bulk of gun murders. And as a result they try to write laws about big, scary assault weapons, and then look shocked when those don't do anything to bring down the murder rates.

I'm still waiting on hearing an actual definition from the antis for "assault weapon" that doesn't just boil down to "black, scary looking rifle" based on cosmetic features. Especially when some legislation in the past has resulted in Civil War firearms, .22s, and hunting rifles being classified as "assault weapons"

**sebster**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I thought I read that his mother was East Asian. Are we now adding 'White Asian' to 'White Hispanic' for when bad things happen?

Slowly but surely, the term white expands to include whatever ethnic groups we've recently come to see as stereotypically middle class. Do you remember when Irish and Italian people weren't thought of as white?

Anyhow, I first read that comment as a clever piece of irony that was parodying the way that crimes committed by ethnic minorities are used to argue against the whole ethnic group (terrorism used to claim that all of Islam has a problem for example), but then realised it might have actually been serious, and is from a really crazy ass professor who is all about inventing ways to make everything about their one political issue. Honestly neither would surprise me.

I'm still waiting on hearing an actual definition from the antis for "assault weapon" that doesn't just boil down to "black, scary looking rifle" based on cosmetic features. Especially when some legislation in the past has resulted in Civil War firearms, .22s, and hunting rifles being classified as "assault weapons"

Pretty much, the assault weapon thing is the perfect example. And big legislative screw ups like that can happen - a movement can lose its way without the underlying issue being bad... but when the anti-gun movement's approach the assault weapon balls up is to just double down on that stance, and insist that what's needed is a permanent assault weapons ban... well then there's real issues in the movement.

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
Slowly but surely, the term white expands to include whatever ethnic groups we've recently come to see as stereotypically middle class. Do you remember when Irish and Italian people weren't thought of as white?

Anyhow, I first read that comment as a clever piece of irony that was parodying the way that crimes committed by ethnic minorities are used to argue against the whole ethnic group (terrorism used to claim that all of Islam has a problem for example), but then realised it might have actually been serious, and is from a really crazy ass professor who is all about inventing ways to make everything about their one political issue. Honestly neither would surprise me.

Mercifully I don't, but I do remember the signs that read "No Irish. No Blacks. No dogs". Sadly I don't see that comment as a parody, I think that we are seeing people trying to inject yet another issue (race) into the mix, along with feminism (ignoring the fact that out of 6 murder victims 4 were male), and gun control.

sebster wrote:
Pretty much, the assault weapon thing is the perfect example. And big legislative screw ups like that can happen - a movement can lose its way without the underlying issue being bad... but when the anti-gun movement's approach the assault weapon balls up is to just double down on that stance, and insist that what's needed is a permanent assault weapons ban... well then there's real issues in the movement.

The problem is two fold. The first is the moral panic and emotional response. The second is the poorly drafted legislation, often because "we need to do something".

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Blood Hawk wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, if theyre on many of these meds (I mean the anti-depressants, not the ADD candy) there IS a psych history, it's just that there's nothing too major to create those red flags and get them more intensive care.

Another thing that I'll point out is that the brain itself is kind of a frontier in its own right.... Each patient has varying degrees of success, and varying reactions to different SSRIs... While Wellbutrin may not work for me, Prozac might. It's unfortunate that there are times where, the doctor or patient doesn't know if there will be a bad reaction to a drug, until it's too late.

But do you want to honestly start looking at one fourth of all adult women, or one in five men? Those are the sort of numbers we are talking about for Mental Health Medication. No seriously America is over medicated on almost everything. Your anti-depressant example the numbers I have seen is that almost one fourth of women 65 and older are on some sort of drug for it. If you want to red flag for these meds you end up red flaging a lot of people, and do we honestly have the resources to keep track of them or hell what about all the people you have issues who never get treatment.

Well, surely the important is to research these drugs more thoroughly to determine whether there actually is a link, or whether the correlation is simply coincidental.

Then, having determined whether there actually is a problem, that these drugs do make certain people act violently, you can then decide what to do about it.

We did it with tobacco, once believed to be a harmless drug, and found that it can cause cancer. Shouldn't we do the same with anti-depressants etc?

The fact that many of these mass shooters were on psychotropic drugs is not a red flag?

There appears to be a worrying correlation. Is there any research currently underway to determine if theres a link?

By itself no not necessarily. Not when reactions to these sort of drugs vary and a larger and increasing number of adults are using them. Many of these adults haven't killed anyone either.

Perhaps not, but what proportion of the people using these drugs have experienced negative side effects that affected their behaviour? How many of them became more violent and aggressive than is typical for them? Just because a minority of them end up killing people doesn't mean the majority are particularly safe.

When theres a correlation between mental illness, use of mind altering drugs and mass murders, surely its important to research the issue to determine whether there is a link?

IS this being researched?

And even then comes the question of availability for the guns. Which if it is easy and straight forward to buy guns without any background checks (it is) then how will you stop them even if they are on some sort of drug?

Its possible to legally buy weapons without background checks?

Speaking as a half informed Brit here.

**Dreadclaw69**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its possible to legally buy weapons without background checks?

Speaking as a half informed Brit here.

The laws to purchases a firearm varies from State to State. In this instance however;

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
For all those focusing on changes to the law, you may wish to note the following (please note, not my own work. I found this elsewhere);

1. Elliot Rodger was being treated by mental health professionals.

2. Rodger's parents contacted law enforcement days prior to the incident, but Elliot did not present himself as an imminent threat to himself or others, so the LEOs didn't take him into custody.

3. Elliot Rodger complied with California's one handgun per 30-days requirement when he purchased each of the three handguns found in his possession.

4. Elliot Rodger waited 10-days before receiving each of his three handguns, per California law.

5. Elliot Rodger passed his three background checks, one for each of his three handguns, per California law.

6. Elliot Rodger passed a written test administered by a California DOJ Certified Instructor, per California law.

7. Elliot Rodger complied with the Safe Handling Demonstration Requirement performed in the presence of a California DOJ Certified Instructor three times, per California law.

8. Elliot Rodger complied with California's Firearms Safety Device Requirement.

9. Elliot Rodger purchased magazines in compliance with California's restrictions on magazine capacity. Each of the magazines had a ten round capacity.

Elliot Rodger had no criminal history or history of violence, his family is affluent and had significant resources, he was being professionally treated, and even when his parents were concerned and law enforcement officers were contacted, he was not deemed to be dangerous at that time.

In all honesty and candor I have no reason to believe that the system failed, or that the laws on the books didn't work. From what we know right now it seems that Elliot Rodger was able to jump through every hoop, even in California, with some of the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to acquiring firearms.

His family was worried and called police. They didn't perceive him to be a threat. They didn't involuntarily commit him or take his firearms away.

What more could possibly be done? Better training for cops? Adding dedicated mental health professionals to the police force to assist with these types of determinations?

**Vaktathi**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Its possible to legally buy weapons without background checks?

Speaking as a half informed Brit here.

Depends on the weapon actually. You don't need to do squat for a sword/axe/knife/baton/pepper spray/etc.

For firearms however it's generally not possible to buy one without a background check, particularly in California. There are a couple exceptions, some inter-familial transfers are the only ones off the top of my head, like from parent to child, though technically they're still subject to the same restrictions as any other firearms purchase (so no giving a child with a felony conviction grandpa's revolver), but otherwise it's not possible to obtain a firearm without a background check.

**Ahtman**

Vaktathi wrote:
For firearms however it's generally not possible to buy one without a background check

It is actually not to hard to get one without a background check if you are so inclined. You have many states where they don't happen at gun shows, and then private individuals buy/sell/trade to others all the time. I knew an older guy with a small arsenal and every week he was buying and trading guns like they were Pokemon cards. Every week he had a new pistol and usually had sold or traded one. He wasn't doing background checks.

**Vaktathi**

Ahtman wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
For firearms however it's generally not possible to buy one without a background check

It is actually not to hard to get one without a background check if you are so inclined. You have many states where they don't happen at gun shows, and then private individuals buy/sell/trade to others all the time. I knew an older guy with a small arsenal and every week he was buying and trading guns like they were Pokemon cards. Every week he had a new pistol and usually had sold or traded one. He wasn't doing background checks.

California (where this shooting occurred) requires background checks for all private party transfers. It's possible in other states for people who do not sell firearms for a living to sell to other individuals without background checks, but not in CA. If an FFL (gun store) is showing up to a Gun Show in any state and isn't doing background checks, they're operating illegally.

**Ahtman**

Vaktathi wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
For firearms however it's generally not possible to buy one without a background check

It is actually not to hard to get one without a background check if you are so inclined. You have many states where they don't happen at gun shows, and then private individuals buy/sell/trade to others all the time. I knew an older guy with a small arsenal and every week he was buying and trading guns like they were Pokemon cards. Every week he had a new pistol and usually had sold or traded one. He wasn't doing background checks.
California (where this shooting occurred) requires background checks for all private party transfers. It's possible in other states for people who do not sell firearms for a living to sell to other individuals without background checks, but not in CA. If an FFL (gun store) is showing up to a Gun Show in any state and isn't doing background checks, they're operating illegally.

I don't think the statement was made that no one ever needs to make background checks, just that there are a number of ways to obtain a firearm without one. Of course this was also only stated in response to the idea that "it's generally not possible to buy one without a background check". California is one of the places that requires them for both private and gun shows, but there are states that do not on either. I didn't think "getting it illegally" needed to be said as far as getting one without a background check, but obliviously there is that route as well.

**dereksatkinson**

sebster wrote:

So it isn't just a preference using guns. It's a preference for murder. And unless we want to argue that Americans are somehow an inherently murderous populace, or there are other issues that are unique to the US that lead to more murder (there's some argument on economic inequality, but all the other usual measures like drugs, policing effectiveness etc are not uniquely US issues)... then it becomes clear that having a sea of guns sloshing about your country really does mean more murders.

It's actually much more simple than that.. It's how we classify murder in the states vs how the rest of the world does. It's Apples to oranges...

One example is how we classify vehicular homocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

That's just one example but even when you look at data for homicide rates, even wikipedia is explicit about explaining the misreporting that is being done for "political reasons". The data is pretty much worthless to draw conclusions from.

And btw.. the income inequality argument is completely brain dead. The standard of living in the US is so ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world I seriously doubt people are shooting eachother over food here in the states.

**Albatross**

Unfortunately, the bottom rungs of American society are so much lower than that of other developed nations. I've been to The States. 'Poverty' here is pretty mild compared to what you guys have. I was brought up in one of the poorest areas of the uk, and I was pretty shocked, tbh.

**jasper76**

Albatross wrote:
Unfortunately, the bottom rungs of American society are so much lower than that of other developed nations. I've been to The States. 'Poverty' here is pretty mild compared to what you guys have. I was brought up in one of the poorest areas of the uk, and I was pretty shocked, tbh.

Not arguing for or against your observation, but when something like Isla Vista happens, its almost always comes from the middle class.

**Vaktathi**

dereksatkinson wrote:

And btw.. the income inequality argument is completely brain dead. The standard of living in the US is so ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world I seriously doubt people are shooting eachother over food here in the states.

Nobody is saying they're shooting each other over food because they're starving, but the US does have some rather stark income inequality issues in some places (particularly next to many similarly otherwise wealthy European nations that enjoy similar standards of living), and where gun crime is most prevalent is typically where such issues are income inequality issues are most exacerbated (e.g. New Orleans, Detroit, parts of Chicago, etc).

**dereksatkinson**

Ahtman wrote:
I don't think the statement was made that no one ever needs to make background checks, just that there are a number of ways to obtain a firearm without one. Of course this was also only stated in response to the idea that "it's generally not possible to buy one without a background check". California is one of the places that requires them for both private and gun shows, but there are states that do not on either. I didn't think "getting it illegally" needed to be said as far as getting one without a background check, but obliviously there is that route as well.

You can not buy from a dealer at a gunshow without going through a background check. 2 unlicensed individuals can make deals but if either part is licensed, they are committing a crime.

Trying to regulate sales between individuals is just dumb. Simply put, it would never work. Plus... Most gun owners aren't selling their weapons to perfect strangers they meet at a gunshow. Mainly because they don't want to get sold a worthless firearm or have knocks on their door when a weapon registered to them gets used in a crime.

btw.. this really isn't a gun issue. The guy was more proficient in killing people with his hammer than he was with a firearm. Ban hammers and cars?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
dereksatkinson wrote:

And btw.. the income inequality argument is completely brain dead. The standard of living in the US is so ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world I seriously doubt people are shooting eachother over food here in the states.
Nobody is saying they're shooting each other over food because they're starving, but the US does have some rather stark income inequality issues in some places (particularly next to many similarly otherwise wealthy European nations that enjoy similar standards of living), and where gun crime is most prevalent is typically where such issues are income inequality issues are most exacerbated (e.g. New Orleans, Detroit, parts of Chicago, etc).

Until you take away the political biases...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
Unfortunately, the bottom rungs of American society are so much lower than that of other developed nations. I've been to The States. 'Poverty' here is pretty mild compared to what you guys have. I was brought up in one of the poorest areas of the uk, and I was pretty shocked, tbh.

I have an EU passport and have done my share of traveling too.. I can't agree with that assessment based on my own personal experience nor economic numbers I monitor.

Either way.. What this kid did had nothing to do with income inequality. He came from a wealthy family, had a fully paid for college eduction and was driving around hollywood in a BMW. He was mentally ill.

**daedalus**

dereksatkinson wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

The argument that wealth inequality is not worth discussing because the poor are still better than starving people in Africa bugs me. Just because there's a bigger problem somewhere doesn't mean that you can dismiss the existence of a little problem.

**Vaktathi**

I would suggest that anything that ranks the bottom US 10% as identical to the top 10% of Italians in terms of "quality of life", may be somewhat flawed.

The article also spends a lot of time talking about being "rich", seemingly oblivious to the fact that was a dollar guys in one nation can buy a whole lot more or a whole lot less in another, along with having vastly different costs for housing and food in different nations.

Either way, doesn't change the fact that firearms crime in the US is generally highest where income inequality issues are greatest, though yes in the SB shooter case obviously it probably had nothing to do with it.

**Ahtman**

dereksatkinson wrote:
btw.. this really isn't a gun issue. The guy was more proficient in killing people with his hammer than he was with a firearm. Ban hammers and cars?

Why don't you ask those who made it a gun issue? My only argument has been against the idea that acquiring a firearm without a background check is difficult if not impossible. The vast majority do it the normal way because they are responsible firearm owners, but it is not difficult to get one without it if that is your goal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
dereksatkinson wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

The argument that wealth inequality is not worth discussing because the poor are still better than starving people in Africa bugs me. Just because there's a bigger problem somewhere doesn't mean that you can dismiss the existence of a little problem.

But they have refrigerators!

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Vaktathi wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Its possible to legally buy weapons without background checks?

Speaking as a half informed Brit here.

Depends on the weapon actually. You don't need to do squat for a sword/axe/knife/baton/pepper spray/etc.

For firearms however it's generally not possible to buy one without a background check, particularly in California. There are a couple exceptions, some inter-familial transfers are the only ones off the top of my head, like from parent to child, though technically they're still subject to the same restrictions as any other firearms purchase (so no giving a child with a felony conviction grandpa's revolver), but otherwise it's not possible to obtain a firearm without a background check.

Well yeah, naturally I meant firearms, not swords and knives.

**Jihadin**

I've seen some bayonets that can be called short swords

**Blood Hawk**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Its possible to legally buy weapons without background checks?

Speaking as a half informed Brit here.

Yes it is. The most common way is the gun show loop hole. 33 states don't require any background checks there for private sales. Even if you live in a state that does require it getting around it may be as simple as having access to a car and the internet to find a gun show where you can get one without a background check.

And of course there is always the internet and the second hand market. With no gun registry or anyway of tracking private sales you can trade/buy guns rather easily with no paper trail.

Another thing to remember is that there almost as many guns in the US as people, like 90 guns for every 100 people or something like that.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well, surely the important is to research these drugs more thoroughly to determine whether there actually is a link, or whether the correlation is simply coincidental.

Then, having determined whether there actually is a problem, that these drugs do make certain people act violently, you can then decide what to do about it.

We did it with tobacco, once believed to be a harmless drug, and found that it can cause cancer. Shouldn't we do the same with anti-depressants etc?

Perhaps not, but what proportion of the people using these drugs have experienced negative side effects that affected their behaviour? How many of them became more violent and aggressive than is typical for them? Just because a minority of them end up killing people doesn't mean the majority are particularly safe.

When theres a correlation between mental illness, use of mind altering drugs and mass murders, surely its important to research the issue to determine whether there is a link?

IS this being researched?

The problem with the tobacco example though is that tobacco hurts everyone who takes it and anti depressants cause suicidal thoughts in only in a low number of cases (less than 5%). It is a link that has been studied and even found in initial trials. But it only occurs in small number of patients.

The conclusion is the same with many drugs or procedures in Medicine. The benefits out way any potential downsides. Side affects are the reason why almost any drug advertised in the US on TV has a some narrator at the end quickly listing off potential side affects, some of which are deadly. Hell when I got my wisdom teeth removed the person walking me through the risks mentioned death as a potential risk to having my wisdom teeth removed. And yes I am serious.

**Jihadin**

Actually browsing already to purchase a paratrooper version of M1 carbine myself

**Ensis Ferrae**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm still waiting on hearing an actual definition from the antis for "assault weapon" that doesn't just boil down to "black, scary looking rifle" based on cosmetic features. Especially when some legislation in the past has resulted in Civil War firearms, .22s, and hunting rifles being classified as "assault weapons"

Actually, the initial draft of the Clinton era "assault weapon ban" would have made firearms from the revolutionary war illegal... Basically, the way they worded it was "if the firearm has 2 or more of these features, then it's an assault weapon" Among the list was:

-composite body (read, plastic or "black" rifles)
-collapsable stock
-the ability to fire it's full load of ammunition with one trigger pull
-bayonet stud/ring
-a particular style of sight aperture
-a sling, or the ability to affix one

and a few others... but basically, every AWI, and ACW re-enactor would have had an illegal weapon, and gun rights groups threw a fit, and pointed out the absurdity of that bit of legislation. Especially since that whole "ability to fire full load of ammunition with one trigger pull" is so nutty. Obviously the politicians were after the full auto AKs and the like, but failed to remember that there were/ are still single shot weapons in existence today.

**Vaktathi**

Blood Hawk wrote:

Yes it is. The most common way is the gun show loop hole. 33 states don't require any background checks there for private sales. Even if you live in a state that does require it getting around it may be as simple as having access to a car and the internet to find a gun show where you can get one without a background check.

And of course there is always the internet and the second hand market. With no gun registry or anyway of tracking private sales you can trade/buy guns rather easily with no paper trail.

Another thing to remember is that there almost as many guns in the US as people, like 90 guns for every 100 people or something like that.

Any internet sale of a firearm (where it's going to be mailed) will be subject to background check and FFL transfer, meaning you can't just mail a gun to someone, you have to send it to an FFL, they have to background check you, and you have to pick up the weapon from them. The only exception is if you just use an internet forum to set up a private meet up where the firearm is exchanged in person, and even then only if you're in a state that doesn't require private party transfers to be checked.

That said, once the background check goes through, the transaction history isn't saved in a centralized database, just the individual FFL's records.

I'm not sure why it's called the "gun show" loophole, nothing about it is specific to gun shows

**Ahtman**

Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why it's called the "gun show" loophole, nothing about it is specific to gun shows

The gun show 'loophole', as it were, is the 33 states that don't require a background check at a gun show to purchase a firearm. There is a link about it earlier. Yes, licensed dealers have to still do it, but not unlicensed ones. It is another situation where some are making it worse for the whole, as their are people that identify as hobbyists or private sellers, and legally are allowed to so, while selling a lot of firearms. The question was never about whether most people get guns without a background check, but the level of difficulty, and the answer is still that it isn't all that difficult if that is your desire.

**Blood Hawk**

Vaktathi wrote:
Any internet sale of a firearm (where it's going to be mailed) will be subject to background check and FFL transfer, meaning you can't just mail a gun to someone, you have to send it to an FFL, they have to background check you, and you have to pick up the weapon from them. The only exception is if you just use an internet forum to set up a private meet up where the firearm is exchanged in person, and even then only if you're in a state that doesn't require private party transfers to be checked.

That said, once the background check goes through, the transaction history isn't saved in a centralized database, just the individual FFL's records.

I'm not sure why it's called the "gun show" loophole, nothing about it is specific to gun shows

Yea I was referring to second hand sales, that use several different sites on the internet to set up private sales between citizens. They are legal in some states.

**Vaktathi**

Ahtman wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure why it's called the "gun show" loophole, nothing about it is specific to gun shows

The gun show 'loophole', as it were, is the 33 states that don't require a background check at a gun show to purchase a firearm. There is a link about it earlier. Yes, licensed dealers have to still do it, but not unlicensed ones.

Right, but it's not specific to gun shows, it's private party transfers in general, gun shows in certain states simply happen to be one place where this occurs, as opposed to it being unique or primarily related to them. I'll fully admit it's a loophole, I just don't see why it's always referenced in regard to gun shows.

That said, anyone considered a "dealer" (as in, they're routinely selling arms for profit as a means of normal income) that isn't licensed is putting themselves at risk of some pretty nasty federal charges. If someone's routinely showing up to a gun show with multiple firearms for sale every month, and aren't operating as, or through, an FFL, that will get them in trouble if they get noticed. The seller is also putting themselves at greater risk, as if they sell to a prohibited person they can be brought up on charges or face civil suit.

**djones520**

Blood Hawk wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Any internet sale of a firearm (where it's going to be mailed) will be subject to background check and FFL transfer, meaning you can't just mail a gun to someone, you have to send it to an FFL, they have to background check you, and you have to pick up the weapon from them. The only exception is if you just use an internet forum to set up a private meet up where the firearm is exchanged in person, and even then only if you're in a state that doesn't require private party transfers to be checked.

That said, once the background check goes through, the transaction history isn't saved in a centralized database, just the individual FFL's records.

I'm not sure why it's called the "gun show" loophole, nothing about it is specific to gun shows

Yea I was referring to second hand sales, that use several different sites on the internet to set up private sales between citizens. They are legal in some states.

Yes, and? Do you think a guy who is intent on murdering someone is going to go through the week plus process of that when he could go to a bass pro, and just pick one up?

An established criminal isn't going to spend money on a person to person sell like that, when he can go to his back alley criminal dealer and get that gun for much cheaper. I would like to see some statistics on how many crimes are committed by weapons bought person to person that don't under-go background checks.

**Vaktathi**

Blood Hawk wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Any internet sale of a firearm (where it's going to be mailed) will be subject to background check and FFL transfer, meaning you can't just mail a gun to someone, you have to send it to an FFL, they have to background check you, and you have to pick up the weapon from them. The only exception is if you just use an internet forum to set up a private meet up where the firearm is exchanged in person, and even then only if you're in a state that doesn't require private party transfers to be checked.

That said, once the background check goes through, the transaction history isn't saved in a centralized database, just the individual FFL's records.

I'm not sure why it's called the "gun show" loophole, nothing about it is specific to gun shows

Yea I was referring to second hand sales, that use several different sites on the internet to set up private sales between citizens. They are legal in some states.

Ah ok, then yeah that's legal provided there's a face to face meetup and you're in a state that doesn't require checks for private party transfers, just can't mail anything.