You're kind of arguing our point for us. Since folks who break the laws, by definition, don't follow laws, more laws are not the answer. If I sell a gun to an out-of-state person, I am breaking the law unless the transaction is completed using an FFL. No amount of new laws would change that.
No, I'm not arguing your point for you. I'm arguing for better laws that have different requirements and are uniform from state to state. I am arguing for laws to establish mechanisms for enforcement that make it possible to find out when someone has broken the law. You guys act like it is impossible to improve the situation. It's not.
The only "gun show loophole" that exists, as far as I can tell, is that I can buy a long gun at a local gun show from another resident of my state, and there is no background check. The seller is charged with ascertaining, to the best of his or her abilities, that I am not prohibited from owning the long gun - not a convicted felon, insane, etc. If I buy a handgun, I am required to have a pistol permit or concealed carry license. In that case, I have already been subjected to a comprehensive background check.
You only seem to half understand the part of this you want to understand. That is a law that puts the entire requirement for adherence on the buyer. It is essentially an honor system. Where else in the world do we do that? If you want perscription drugs you go to a regulated
pharmacy with a regulated
prescription. You don't show up and they just sell you whatever you want, assuming you have a script and if you don't, well gee, criminals will be criminals.
That is a gigantic loophole that makes it so easy to break the law. It is not that more
laws are needed. It is that this law is written stupidly. There is only a requirement in 14 states for background checks at gun shows.
Why? Why not make it a felony to sell to someone who does not have a permit or does not pass a background check? Why should you not have to prove you can own a gun before you buy it?
This seems so obvious to me. I don't understand why anyone argumes. It strikes me as rather obtuse.
I could just arrange for a later meeting outside the gun show grounds.
I'm 100% in favor of gun registration and making this^ a felony.
As to Chicago's problems - why should it be harder for someone in, say, rural Wyoming to buy a hunting gun or even a self-defense gun, just because Chicago has a gang problem?
Oh for fuckssake, whining and hyperbole isn't an argument. And last I checked, gangs are not outfitted with hunting rifles. Most gun crimes are carried out with handguns.
When I was considering buying a gun I researched the guns I could get. I wanted a 12 gage autoloader, a tactical gun for home defense. It comes with an 8 shot or 5 shot magazine. When I found out the 8 shot was considered and assault weapon in my state, and not available to the general public, I was a little miffed. Why shouldn't I
be able to have this, goddammit? Realistically, 5 shots is more than what I would need. But because I could not have the 8 shot, I wanted it all the more.
I think this is the basis for all pro-gun arguments. Gun owners are not thinking about felons, or the mentally ill, or the idiots. They aren't thinking about how to make the laws work. They are not thinking about the general public or their neighbors' kids. They are just thinking about the toys they want and the possibility of them being forbidden. Kinda selfish if you ask me.