5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana

[ibx 2]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19/16603029-5-accidentally-shot-at-gun-shows-in-north-carolina-ohio-indiana?lite

Responsible gun owners...

[Skyrad 0]

Give muppets access to firearms sans training what do you expect.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Give muppets access to firearms sans training what do you expect.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jR9bCuArmP0/TxZ0LvhiNuI/AAAAAAAADQI/Nh98BiPXxoc/s1600/Muppets+Rizzo+Guns.jpg

That was too easy.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19/16603029-5-accidentally-shot-at-gun-shows-in-north-carolina-ohio-indiana?lite

Responsible gun owners...

I'm pretty sure this is another staged conspiracy,brought to you by the same secrete Obama task force that staged the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings. After all, we have heard over and over from our esteemed 2nd amendment defenders that the "gun show loophole" is a lie,because there are no private sales at gun shows, only licensed dealers. Needless to say, dealers would never sell a loaded weapon. Ergo, the story must be false and intended to feed the lie that it is possible to buy guns without having a background check.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 2,027]

Appreciate that!

politicalgroove.com/2013/01/4-people-shot-so-far-on-gun-appreciation-day.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

No conspiracy, just your average everyday lazy incomplete article masquerading as journalism. First of all, there is no gun show loophole. Private sales are legal in this country; location has nothing to do with it. Also, who said it was going to be private to private sales? Maybe he was planning to sell to a dealer? Next, I've been to that NC show. They have signs posted forbidding loaded firearms. Under NC law, even though he had permission to be there, by engaging in prohibited behavior, he's guilty of second degree trespassing. He's also guilty of reckless endangerment. I don't know that any LEO charged him or the Wake ADA will prosecute him, but I do expect lawsuits.

Your problem is not that three idiots out of tens of millions of gun owners were responsible for a negligent discharge. Your problem is that you want the government involved in every single firearms transaction, and it sounds like you want universal registration. Yes? No?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,998]

>First of all, there is no gun show loophole.

You can go to a gun show and buy a gun with nothing more than cash on the barrel if you know who to go to (private sellers.) That's the loophole. Thus when gun advocates claim that there's no way to buy a gun without a background check at a gun show, they are claiming something that (to use GOP language) is not intended to be an accurate statement.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19/16603029-5-accidentally-shot-at-gun-shows-in-north-carolina-ohio-indiana?lite

Responsible gun owners...

Once again, we see the lame street media propagating the lie that private gun sales take place at gun shows.

Quote

Officials say Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, was having his shotgun checked before entering the show when the incident happened. He was unzipping his 12-gauge shotgun's case when it accidentally fired birdshot pellets, hitting three people, The News & Observer in Raleigh reported. Wilson was planning on privately selling the gun at the show, according to NBC affiliate WNCN.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

No conspiracy, just your average everyday lazy incomplete article masquerading as journalism. First of all, there is no gun show loophole. Private sales are legal in this country; location has nothing to do with it. Also, who said it was going to be private to private sales? Maybe he was planning to sell to a dealer? Next, I've been to that NC show. They have signs posted forbidding loaded firearms. Under NC law, even though he had permission to be there, by engaging in prohibited behavior, he's guilty of second degree trespassing. He's also guilty of reckless endangerment. I don't know that any LEO charged him or the Wake ADA will prosecute him, but I do expect lawsuits.

Your problem is not that three idiots out of tens of millions of gun owners were responsible for a negligent discharge. Your problem is that you want the government involved in every single firearms transaction, and it sounds like you want universal registration. Yes? No?

The private sales of firearms, without a background check, are not legal in the whole country.

Only three idiots out of the millions of gun owners? Are you serious?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Your problem is that you want the government involved in every single firearms transaction,

Well, there needs to be a realistic address of logistical considerations. Under current federal law, it's unlawful for anyone (even a strictly private sale) to "sell or otherwise dispose of" guns or ammo to certain categories of person - felons, the mentally ill, illegal aliens, for example. One loophole is the language in the law that the seller/transferor has to "know or have reasonable cause to believe" that the transferee is one of those things.

So on a practical level, how can that be enforced without a mandatory waiting period during which time a government-conducted record check is performed, together with registration for ongoing enforcement purposes?

(Bear in mind: I generally don't even bother asking this question because I usually just get bashed by people who refuse to recognize that I'm a moderates on gun issues; yes, we do exist.)

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Well, there needs to be a realistic address of logistical considerations. Under current federal law, it's unlawful for anyone (even a strictly private sale) to "sell or otherwise dispose of" guns or ammo to certain categories of person - felons, the mentally ill, illegal aliens, for example. One loophole is the language in the law that the seller/transferor has to "know or have reasonable cause to believe" that the transferee is one of those things.

So on a practical level, how can that be enforced without a mandatory waiting period during which time a government-conducted record check is performed, together with registration for ongoing enforcement purposes?

(Bear in mind: I generally don't even bother asking this question because I usually just get bashed by people who refuse to recognize that I'm a moderates on gun issues; yes, we do exist.)

I don't see any way for it to really be enforced without mandatory registration. Which failed pretty badly in Canada.

I wouldn't have a problem with a requirement for background checks if:

A - it was easy and not too expensive.

B - it didn't involve registration.

One option that seems to be workable would be a firearms buyer ID of some sort. Simply proof that the person is legal to purchase a firearm.
A carry permit seems to do that, and allows purchasers to bypass the B/C and wait period in some places. Rushmc has said that Iowa has that.

But without universal registration, it would be pretty toothless. There wouldn't be any way to ensure that a B/C took place because there wouldn't be any record of transfers.
And regsistration simply won't fly. Too much opposition by too many for too many valid reasons.

Professor Kallend has proposed nationwide registration with severe penalties for failure, and registration checks at any firing range.

This proposal is ludicrous for several reasons, the most obvious is that anyone who isn't legally able to own a firearm cannot be prosecuted for failing to register it.

And there are millions (tens of millions?) of guns out there with no paper trail beyond the manufacturer's sale records.
No record of sale was required before GCA '68.
And if the gun hasn't gone through a FFL holder since then, it simply has no paper trail.

I know people that have fairly extensive collections that are entirely "paperless" guns. They have gone to a fair amount of trouble to make sure that everything they have is pre-68 originally and hasn't been through an FFL since.

And FWIW, the guy in the OP link was a dumbass. He clearly failed to follow most of the basic rules of gun safety. Gun shows around here now require all guns to be checked as empty and zip-tied to prevent the action from being moved before entering the facility. You can't even open a bolt to check the bore or anything.
It looks like that was what happened here. It was loaded in the case, and the idiot had his finger in the trigger when he pulled it out to check it in.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Skyrad 0]

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>First of all, there is no gun show loophole.

You can go to a gun show and buy a gun with nothing more than cash on the barrel if you know who to go to (private sellers.) That's the loophole. Thus when gun advocates claim that there's no way to buy a gun without a background check at a gun show, they are claiming something that (to use GOP language) is not intended to be an accurate statement.

And like I said (but you omitted) that has nothing to do with gun shows. You can call it the private transfer loophole, or some other name, but don't limit it to gun shows. Doing that is the old gun-banner strategy of attacking piecemeal. If they ban private sales at gun shows, the next step would be creating a so called "back alley" loop hole. Or maybe a "living room" loophole. If your goal is to control or prevent all private sales, then say so.

If you want to talk about lies under other names, then lets talk about the BS of dealers selling without background checks. It doesn't happen. No FFL dealer will ever sell a gun without a check. If I go to a show and happen to sell a gun, I'm no more a dealer than selling my truck makes me a car dealer.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Apparently your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

Nevertheless, I'll answer your questions at least to say that I don't support registration, but I do support background checks even for private sales. Rushmc described the system they use in Iowa, which puts the onus on the buyer. Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must obtain a certificate from the sheriff, who does the appropriate background check before issuing the certificate. The seller needs only to verify that the buyer has an in-date certificate. Other solutions to the problem can be imagined, but the Iowa example does show that it is possible to add background checks to private sales with minimal inconvenience to the seller.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

>First of all, there is no gun show loophole.

You can go to a gun show and buy a gun with nothing more than cash on the barrel if you know who to go to (private sellers.) That's the loophole. Thus when gun advocates claim that there's no way to buy a gun without a background check at a gun show, they are claiming something that (to use GOP language) is not intended to be an accurate statement.

And like I said (but you omitted) that has nothing to do with gun shows. You can call it the private transfer loophole, or some other name, but don't limit it to gun shows. Doing that is the old gun-banner strategy of attacking piecemeal. If they ban private sales at gun shows, the next step would be creating a so called "back alley" loop hole. Or maybe a "living room" loophole. If your goal is to control or prevent all private sales, then say so.

If you want to talk about lies under other names, then lets talk about the BS of dealers selling without background checks. It doesn't happen. No FFL dealer will ever sell a gun without a check. If I go to a show and happen to sell a gun, I'm no more a dealer than selling my truck makes me a car dealer.

Don't know how gun dealing works, since I am not a gun guru....But if you sell over 6 cars a year in my state you are a dealer, and subject to the rules and regulations of one. So if its the same for guns just make sure you don't sell too many at the show.

[Kennedy 0]

I'm not going to bash you Andy. It's nice to discuss a subject with an intelligent and informed individual with whom you disagree. As you know, nice can be tough to find in forums. I'm aware of the federal laws covering any transfer o firearms, not just sales. I'm more concerned about selective or overreaching enforcement by a certain federal agency. BATFE is not exactly known for reasonable, consistent, or even legal actions.

However, I'm surprised you suggest a waiting period. The USA did use waiting periods before the instant check. The waiting period is unnecessary. NICS is superior and removes the need to prevent people from going without. What we do need is better database management and information inclusion. We also need a way for private citizens to use the NICS. No "whys" just a yes or no. That doesn't require registration or waiting periods.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Sounds like it could work. Of course, nobody throws car dealers in Leavenworth if they lose a car...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Appreciate that!

politicalgroove.com/2013/01/4-people-shot-so-far-on-gun-appreciation-day.html

Quote

That brings the tally to 4 victims of gun violence so far at three different gun shows during the country’s first Gun Appreciation Day.


Accidental discharge is gun VIOLENCE?


" I'll take Liberal Media for 100 Bob "

What is ~ Shock Value Propaganda?




The transparent agenda & the total audaciousness and stupidity of the people behind it would be funny...if they didn't have such a following of sheep too dumb or lazy to do think for themselves or maybe do a little research.



Baaaaaaa....guns bad, hard work bad, rich people bad, - free money GOOD...Baaaaa!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Sounds like it could work. Of course, nobody throws car dealers in Leavenworth if they lose a car...

Well it is a Class A misdemeanor to operate as a dealer without a license, not sure what has to happen to make it a felony, and I don't think it ever gets federal if you aren't crossing state lines.

I guess your point is people hate gun sellers and want to make it hard for honest folk to do good business.

I agree. I think if some crazy kid had run over a kindergarten class people would be saying the same thing about car dealers. Would have to be one of those new minis to fit down the halls though.

[masterrig 1]

What the hell were they doing with loaded guns at a gun show?


Chuck

[billvon 2,998]

>And like I said (but you omitted) that has nothing to do with gun shows.

Being able to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check has nothing to do with gun shows?

It is where people go to buy guns. It's like claiming that drop zones have nothing to do with parachuting because people can legally parachute anywhere.

>If your goal is to control or prevent all private sales, then say so.

Not at all. One excellent goal (IMO) would be to require background checks for all weapon sales. No exceptions, whether it's in a back alley, gun show or living room.

>If you want to talk about lies under other names, then lets talk about the BS of dealers
> selling without background checks. It doesn't happen. No FFL dealer will ever sell a
>gun without a check.

Of course it does. Google "gun dealer convicted" and you'll get hundreds of hits.

However (and I think this is your point) it happens relatively rarely because there are laws against that. So requiring background checks does, in most cases, work. It only makes sense to require them for all gun sales.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

However (and I think this is your point) it happens relatively rarely because there are laws against that. So requiring background checks does, in most cases, work. It only makes sense to require them for all gun sales.

It works because violating this law would take away the income that these legal firearms dealers enjoy. Requiring the same for all citizens who sell part of their collection can not be assumed to be followed to the same degree.

--
Rob

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

What the hell were they doing with loaded guns at a gun show?


Chuck

For sure. Every time I've taken a gun into a gun show they have checked and zip-tied it.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

What the hell were they doing with loaded guns at a gun show?


Chuck

For sure. Every time I've taken a gun into a gun show they have checked and zip-tied it.

Someone was sure asleep at the switch!


Chuck

[champu 1]

Sounds like at least one of the incidents was at the check-in table where they were probably going to do just that.

I think putting a loaded firearm into a case (let alone with the safety in the fire position) regardless of where you're taking it is asking for an accident.