Bloomberg’s Gun Show Bill

Dave Kopel goes into detail in an editorial in the Denver Post on why Bloomberg’s gun show bill isn’t just about background checks. This is what MAIG Mayors are pushing. It’s real gun control, not just concerning itself with illegal guns. If your Mayor is a member of MAIG, you have to get him out. Make him understand what these people are pushing in his or her name,

15 thoughts on “Bloomberg’s Gun Show Bill”

  1. John Hickenlooper, Mayor of Denver, is the only MAIG mayor in Colorado.

    He’s also the leading Dem candidate to run for Governor.

    He won’t disavow MAIG, but he won’t mention it either. It’s something you really don’t need to know.

  2. There seems to be a lot of mind reading and future doomsday predictions going on in his opposition.

    The proposals are not bad at all for law-abiding people. Why would you want to protect people who are less than law-abiding?

  3. Benefit how? It’s meant to close down gun shows. It’s very obvious if you read the actual bill. You can disagree, but you should explain, not just declare.

  4. mike,

    How many times do you have to be given the same information? Can’t you take facts from previous discussions and transfer them to new discussions? They haven’t changed.

    The FBI has repeatedly shown that criminals get their guns primarily from friends/associates/family or theft. They also show that criminals, by their own statements, will simply change access method if one becomes more difficult.

    Knowingly providing a gun to a prohibited person is a crime, stealing a gun is a crime, being a prohibited person in possession is a crime. What new crime would you add?

    Friends and family may be non-prohibited persons, increased background checks will do nothing to stop them from acquiring weapons. Not to mention how do you actually stop people from doing face-to-face sales? Those inclined will do so regardless, particularly if they are already willing to commit similar felonies. What’s one more?

    In any event, if they buy a gun for a prohibited person they are already committing a crime, if they knowingly provide a weapon to a prohibited person they are committing a crime. Making either “more felonious” (which has already been tried) logically won’t have any effect.

    As for increased dealer requirements, intentionally violating Federal regs is a serious felony, if they are deliberately doing so they also are unlikely to be deterred by “more illegality”, likewise, if they do so unintentionally more deterrence and consequences logically won’t make them more cautious. In any event most guns are not purchased (again, multiple NIJ and other studies) directly by prohibited persons from gunshows or dealers now, regardless of background checks.

    Registration schemes don’t work past the last sale recorded (again, the illegal ones won’t be) and in every instance tried, both foreign and in multiple states, do not contribute to solving crimes, they just waste money.

    Look, there’s nothing being proposed as “reasonable gun regulations” that hasn’t been tried multiple times in multiple places. In no instance have such attempts accomplished, or even come close to accomplishing, their goals of increasing safety or decreasing crime.

    In fact that is happening in this country even as access to and public carrying of weapons by the law-abiding increases. We don’t need gun restrictions on them to do it.

    Us “law-abiding folks” are thus rightfully frustrated that those proposing such restrictions (the usual suspects) know this already and thus cannot claim to be proposing them in good faith. They want bans, short and simple. They know they can’t get them in one fell swoop and instead are trying them piecemeal, from the same playbook, over and over in different locations depending on the credulousness and ignorance of most voters to get them passed.

  5. Sebastian, why do you keep feeding the troll?

    He doesn’t care one whit about the laws, gun control, guns, or your blog. He’s posting here for a link to his blog, and to get lengthy responses (that he won’t respond to) like Mathew’s above.

    It would be one thing if we actually would get a debate, or some interesting thoughts from the anti-freedom side, but can you show me a single instance in this blog where such a thing has happened?

  6. Sebastian, why do you keep feeding the troll?

    That’s a good question Weer’d. But I’m challenging him to provide real answers in this instance. If he wants to keep getting attention he needs to debate a point, not just make declarations and be done with it.

  7. “That’s a good question Weer’d. But I’m challenging him to provide real answers in this instance.”

    He hasn’t done it yet. Not here, not at his blog, not anywhere. At this point its about as likely that my Aunt will grow nuts and become my uncle, or my Buddy’s neutered cat will become a bitch-dog and have puppies.

    “If he wants to keep getting attention he needs to debate a point, not just make declarations and be done with it.”

    It seems he’s fooled you pretty good. Just above every damn non-substantive comment he’s made has gotten your response, as well as links back to his blog (not to mention lots of responses from your readers, which he rarely responds to, but will occasionally further troll with non-rebuttal “responses”)

    This is your blog, and I respect your right to do in it what you wish, But I see nothing that supports your above statement, given the long history of trolling here.

  8. Weer’d is exaggerating my lack of participation in the discussions. That’s what he does, he exaggerates the “offense” and then gets all self righteous and indignant. Sebastian, why do you allow him to get away with that?

    My idea about the Mayors is that there’s less of a conspiracy to “close all gun shows” and to “eventually ban all guns” than you guys keep saying.

    I’m sorry that Matthew feels I’n not learning lessons from previous discussions, but many of the lessons I just don’t find convincing. So, yes I keep repeating the same things, but so do you. You keep repeating, for example that selling a gun to a disqualified person is already a crime, that to demand background checks would not change that. But that’s a typical obfuscation on your part. The background checks on all transfers will affect all those sloppy apathetic gun owners who might turn a blind eye if they can get away with it. I realize the real gangsters will still do their business, but many of the sales to disqualified persons would be prevented, its’ just common sense.

    There’s a lot more, but let me sum it up by saying you’re arguments are not all that convincing to anyone except yourselves. That’s not my fault. That’s just the way it is.

  9. Hence why you’ve managed to convince how many people to sell their guns and help you champion anti-freedom laws?


    And I think we can all agree the hardcore gangsters are the ones with the serious kill-counts.

    Meanwhile how much of a problem are so-called “sloppy apathetic gun owners”

    Something tells me again you’re lying. Why would we think you’re telling the truth now?

    Also I find it a bit hilarious that you’ll dredge up your same-old tired and paper-thin argument when you’re concerned about being banned from yet another blog.

    Best thing I ever did was to kick your trolling ass off mine. There are a ton of others who share that opinion with me.

    Plus you’ve made your game pretty clear from the get-go

  10. mike,

    There isn’t a “problem” to be solved. The only private party transactions that matter are ones in which a criminal gets a firearm and could not have gotten it anyother way.

    “A mid-1980s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study of convicted felons in 12 state prisons found that criminals purchased firearms at gun shows so rarely that those purchases were not worth reporting as a separate category.

    The evidence indicates that criminal demand for firearms did not shift to gun shows after the 1994 Brady Law mandated background checks for all gun purchases from licensed dealers.

    (my note: Combine the two above studies findings using some logical reasoning. They show that criminals were not buying in any significant way from otherwise law-abiding unlicensed sellers OR licensed dealers even before the mandatory NICS check came into effect. Then as now they get guns from people who are willing to knowingly commit crimes and will never run a check no matter what laws are passed.)

    An NIJ study released in December 1997 said only 2 percent of criminal guns came from gun shows.

    A study of youthful offenders in Michigan, presented at a meeting of the American Society of Criminology, found that only 3 percent had acquired their last handgun at a gun show – and many of the purchases were made by “straw purchasers” (i.e., legal gun buyers illegally acting as surrogates for criminals).

    (my note: Straw buyers are criminals themselves who no background check will stop.)

    A 1997 report by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics on federal firearms offenders said only 1.7 percent of crime guns are acquired at gun shows.

    According to a report issued by the educational arm of Handgun Control, only two of 48 major city police chiefs said that gun show sales were an important problem in their city.”

    These are gun show figures but you can go to the multiple studies themselves and see that private party transfers by people not aware that the person buying is a prohibited person (the “careless seller”) are not significant.

    Again, use logic.

    Most criminals get their guns from friends and family members aware of their status and thus criminally. Those people, already willing to commit the felony of providing or acquiring a weapon for a prohibited person will not be deterred by one more law. If they are not prohibited persons themselves no NICS check will stop them from illegally getting the gun to illegally transfer anyway.

    The studies clearly show that prohibited persons do buy firearms themselves in any statistically significant numbers from anyone who would be required to run a NICS check under these new “reasonable regulations”, thus making more checks a worthless effort.

    Forcing all gun owners, who have a fundamental human right to possess and transfer their own property in general and firearms in particular is an unreasonable intrusion as it will do nothing to address in any statistically significant way, much less even approach solving, any problem of crime or public safety. We have 30 years of studies by groups generally hostile or indifferent to the individual RKBA that prove it.

    In any event, the burden is on the restricter of fundamental rights to prove that their restriction will have such an effect and as noted above the evidence to test that already exists in volume over time. Examining that evidence clearly shows the proposed restriction will not work.

    Not sure why you deliberately choose to ignore mountains of evidence.

  11. edit 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

    “The studies clearly show that prohibited persons do NOT buy firearms themselves…”

  12. Matthew, he’s read that study at least a half-dozen times. He’s provided nothing to the contrary.

    He’s a troll who just likes to see people write huge responses and derail threads and sling lies.

    You’re speaking to an angry little stone.

  13. I just don’t understand that mindset. To deliberately choose unreason, even to mimic it…

  14. Yeah that part took me a while to figure out myself

    Granted MikeB is irrational, but that’s not why he comments. He comments for attention, and attention alone. He could care less about guns, gun laws, or how we live our lives.

    He just wants us to live our lives paying attention to him, and he’s found that being anti-gun is a good way to to generate that attention. Especially when you’re as sick as Mike, and see negative attention as just as desirable as positive.

Comments are closed.