Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Issue is violence, not the guns

April 25, 2013

Editor, OBSERVER: I recently listened to “Meet the Press” when U.S. Sen. Mark Rubio was being asked about “the gun issue....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-26-13 10:57 PM

The only way to prevent those who have mental problems from passing a background check is to link the Federal Instant Check data base with databases containing medical files. At what degree do you determine someone has sufficient mental problems to fail their instant check? Does someone who saw a doctor for depression at one time loose their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms? Myself, I don’t have the answers but I do know if they ever do link those databases up, tens of thousands of Veterans will loose the Constitutional Right they fought to preserve. If they ever claimed PTSD, a mental disorder, they will be disqualified and may have their firearms confiscated. Janet Napolitano already considers Veterans a threat and this will only make it worse.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 4:56 PM

stangv8, I agree with you there. If they want one bad enough, most won't be standing in line at a gun show.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 4:54 PM

Like I said, I own guns, I support the 2nd Amendment, and I think a national registry would be an invasion of my privacy. I also don’t think the government should oversee my sale of a gun to my neighbor, cousin or whomever.

But - - if my neighbor’s legally insane and howls at the moon and my cousin’s a two-time felon looking for a quick score, I just might think twice about making the sale.

But it’s still okay they can walk into a gun show in 33 states and pick up whatever they want from a private seller?

We should make it easy for them? Those are the kind of people we want armed?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 4:42 PM

Dkexpt, it doesn’t matter what is done, hardened criminals will always get guns or anything else they want to commit their crimes. Gangs with their ill-gotten money can buy guns on the black market quite easily. Many of these firearms are shipped in from overseas and can be had for a lot less than you or I could buy a similar weapon from a dealer.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 4:32 PM

Sorry, Rip, but you're wrong. The gun show loophole is alive and well. See my earlier post.) Come down to VA and see it in action, one of 33 states with it.

As a gun owner who's bought a firearm at a gun show, I don't mind background checks on 100% of purchases at gun shows. Why should we make it so easy for felons and straw purchasers?

Do you really want that?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 4:10 PM

DKexpat - do a little more research on exactly what the "gunshow loophole" is. There is no loophole. Any licensed FFL still does the required background checks. The vast majority of guns sold at gun shows are through licensed FFL holders. The private sales at gun shows (in most states) do not require NICS checks, just as private sales outside of gun shows do not.

Also, these alleged internet sales are most likely illegal already. While there are reputable internet sales that take place all the time from sources such as Bud's Gun Shop, Gunbroker & Gallery of Guns, these sites require that all sales be shipped to licensed FFL holders who then perform background checks. I'm sure that there are avenues to get illegal guns online, you can apparently also get hookers, but those things will continue without background checks, they are already likely illegal.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 1:39 PM

Told you it was a bad analogy... :-)

I'm a gun owner and 2nd Amendement supporter. And I don't seem the harm in closing a loophole in 33 states that makes it easier for felons to buy guns. That's all...

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 1:19 PM

DKexpat, your analogy is not even close to working, isn't it illegal to sell drugs, there are no licensed sellers so all purchases are illegal. With this analogy for guns then all purchases would be illegal, how would back ground checks help prevent the sales?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 12:46 PM

Geeez...h-e-r-o-i-n is one of those nasty words the Observer ******s out.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 12:45 PM

stangv8, as a gun owner, I frankly don't want "easy access" via gun shows to felons or straw purchasers for felons. That's my point.

Here’s an admittedly poor analogy. ****** is illegal, so purchases are all "private sales." I don’t want a dealer to be able to set up a booth at the Farm Festival to make it esier for felons to buy it.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 11:16 AM

DKexpat, you’re right, a non-dealer can purchase table space at a gun show and sell his firearms without a FFL. But, what is the difference between him selling his firearms at a gun show or running an ad in the local paper for a yard sale to include firearms and set the table up in his driveway? Yes, more traffic at the gun show but he’s still selling the firearms. The supposed gun show loophole is: Private citizens selling their firearms in a public place rather than in a more private setting

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 10:06 AM

It’s a double standard: Dealers at gun shows must be licensed and run background checks. Private sales at guns shows by unlicensed vendors – between 10% and 22% at shows here in VA – are more like “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The DOJ’s “less than 1%” purchased at gun shows survey quoted by many was –get this – from a “self-identify, where’d you get the gun?” multiple choice questionnaire given to incarcerated felons. I’m sure that was a very scientific poll...and the provenance of the weapons was never traced.

ATF has identified gun shows as the 2nd-largest channel for criminals: (1) 1,530 trafficking investigations 1996-98 = 25,000 illegal firearms; (2) more recently, 2004-06 = 195 gun show investigations = 5,345 seizures. (Less than 2% of gun shows are checked annually.)

I agree most criminals don’t source their guns at shows, but were I a licensed dealer competing against private sellers, I’d like them to have to play by the same rules I do.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 10:04 AM

stangv8 wrote: "....many criminal lawyers are able to get felony charges dropped to lesser charges" Indeed, that's SOP for the plea deal isn't it?. A primary motivator to not breaking the law is....fear of what comes with a conviction. But when the gun charge, commonly the most serious of the charges laid, is commonly pleaded down "in the interest of justice"; what motivation is there on the part of a criminal to not go out and do it again, and again? Unless the government has some reason to put on a "dog and pony" trial, the gun charge is right at the very top of the list of charges that just seem to go away.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 10:03 AM

Can you imagine a criminal submitting to a background check? I can't. There are already 300 million guns in this country and criminals will figure out a way to get them - or maybe they will use pressure cookers! Rubio has it right. We live inb a violent society with alot of distrust and hatred of government. We need to start by cleaning up the media where you can see multiple murders every day on TV, in the movies or video games. It would help if we had a government that actually represents the people and not the special interests. Our foreign policy is a major problem and needs to be changed.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 9:00 AM

Beyond the popular belief of many here, not all criminals have criminal backgrounds which would prevent them from purchasing a firearm. Many criminals haven’t been caught yet or haven’t been convicted of a felony. Not every crime is a felony and many criminal lawyers are able to get felony charges dropped to lesser charges. That’s how many criminals who are now in prison were previously able to purchase firearms from dealers.

CKP5600, thanks for the statistics. Unfortunately, there are those here who will still claim how universal background checks will close the "gun show loophole" and prevent gun crime from taking place.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 8:50 AM

Sorry, should be DKexpat.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 8:49 AM

DKexpay, maybe you can explain what the gun show loophole is? So far, nobody has been able to.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 8:16 AM

" "whose role was as yet unknown". Observer???"


1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 7:51 AM

A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth: • 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member • 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source • 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show • 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market • 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop • 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets Note that less than 9 percent of all guns obtained by criminals in this survey came from retail outlets, hardly “a lot” compared to the almost 40 percent of convicts who obtained guns from friends or family or the almost 40 percent who obtained them illegally on the street. The gun-show loophole? Less than 1 percent of criminal guns came from gun shows.

This is why we don't think more back ground checks are needed, the majority of guns come straw purchases. i.e friends and family. more checks will not stop this from hap

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 7:40 AM

How anyone could be against more checks in an attempt to keep felons from obtaining weapons is just beyond me. That's what puts the "nut" in "gun nuts".

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-13 12:29 AM

ATF study in 1999 that covered 314 gun show investigations - - Felons were involved in 46% of all transactions.

That's why, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter, I nonetheless endorse closing the gun show loophole.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-13 11:10 PM

Actually, for myself, I don’t believe in using my AR-15 or AK-47 for home defense: I prefer my Combat Commander and FNP-45. The AR and AK are for any possible civil unrest or naturally disaster like what occurred during Katrina. We all heard of what happened in New Orleans but in the rural areas of Southern Louisiana and Mississippi, those people were on their own as all recourses went to the big cities. Don’t forget the 1992 LA Riots. Many Korean store owners were on their own defending their lives and property. I bet you didn’t hear either of the car loads of thugs who headed to the suburbs for a “little fun” but were met and tuned back by armed homeowners. Lastly, those millions of AR’s and AK’s owned by citizens are for enforcement of the Bill of Rights; the document which protects you, the American Citizen, from a government gone amok.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-13 10:58 PM

Judeye, have you ever been to a gun show? How about attending one and trying to purchase a gun before making a statement like: Many guns used in crimes were GUN SHOWS. Where NO background checks were conducted.

It's been explained a dozen times on here what the laws are but you still keep coming back with the same statement. Common, I know you're smarter than that. I've read some very intelligent things you have written over the years; don't always agree but they are well thought out and researched. So, please, do some of that research when it comes to firearms.

Also, straw purchasers for firearms is illegal.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-13 8:11 PM

You can pass all the laws and background checks you want criminals will still get guns as to the mentally ill they could be stopped if family and close friends recognize the signs and get them help instead of hoping nothing happens.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-13 4:04 PM

"whose role was as yet unknown". Observer???

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web