What if she didn't have a gun?

[hunarcy]

As has been discussed on this thread several times private sales don't require any background check. You'd have figured that out if you read the link. The shooter who killed 3 and injured 4 used this loophole when he couldn't have bought from a dealer. Sounds like proof we need background checks on all gun sales. Again I win. Now please stop arguing from emotion. Calling me a liar when the article is clear about the loophole is just childish.

You must have a problem comprehending English, there is no loophole in the law. A loophole is a area of a law that is designed to prevent something that doesn't actually prevent it. An example of this is a law that is intended to make drugs illegal that specifically defines drugs by chemical composition that allows a clever person to reformulate the drug to avoid the law. Since the law was never intended to cover sales between private individuals it is only a loophole in the minds of idiots.

Wow you guys are so owned you argue the definition of loophole. That is funny.

What's funny is that you're so ignorant, they have to argue with you because you can't accept the truth. You think because some propagandist used the term incorrectly to try to have a pithy sound bite, it makes it true? THAT'S funny.

 

[hunarcy]

Call it what you want, doesn't change it helped arm a guy who murdered 3 people. Proof we need background checks for ALL gun sales.

No, what we need is a way to actually control PEOPLE and remove them from the rest of society, because they are a threat to themselves and others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As has been discussed on this thread several times private sales don't require any background check.

Exactly right. It's not a loop hole, the law was written that way specifically to allow people to dispose of their private property.

To call it a "loophole" is dishonest.

Call it what you want, doesn't change it helped arm a guy who murdered 3 people. Proof we need background checks for ALL gun sales.

How did background checks stop the shooting in Arizona?

 

[Uncensored2008]

No actually I don't. Have people really been effected by having background checks for dealer sales? I don't think so.

The claim that private sales have an impact is a red herring, a logical fallacy. Private sales assume that a private seller has a gun they want to sell. By simple extension, this represents a tiny fraction of sales, especially in the current climate.

Forcing private sellers to use a federally licensed dealer places a huge burden on the seller while affecting what, 1/100th of 1% of all sales?

The act is onerous and ineffective, meant only to infringe the rights of the law abiding.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As has been discussed on this thread several times private sales don't require any background check. You'd have figured that out if you read the link. The shooter who killed 3 and injured 4 used this loophole when he couldn't have bought from a dealer. Sounds like proof we need background checks on all gun sales. Again I win. Now please stop arguing from emotion. Calling me a liar when the article is clear about the loophole is just childish.

The article called it a loophole but the liberal author is just as stupid as you are.

A loophole is a way to circumvent a law or system of rules. Since there are no laws or sets of rules concerning private sales, there IS NO LOOPHOLE!!!

You reasoning is "everyone calls it a loophole". Well dumbass, everyone that does is wrong!!

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.

The intent of background checks is to keep criminals from buying guns. Private sales are a loophole because they allow criminals to circumvent a background check. So it is by definition a loophole.

Now that said it really doesn't matter what you call it. I've provided proof criminals use it and murder people. It needs to be closed.

I do find it funny you can't argue the facts so you try to argue the definition of loophole.

Bingo, and the stated purpose of the system is to require background checks for all FFL sales. Unless you want all gun owners to have an FFL, which would allow them to own anything, including fully automatic weapons, the only ambiguity is in your head. That would probably go away if you ever realize that it is not intended to keep your ears far enough apart not to flap against each other when you turn around.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.

The intent of background checks is to keep criminals from buying guns. Private sales are a loophole because they allow criminals to circumvent a background check. So it is by definition a loophole.

Now that said it really doesn't matter what you call it. I've provided proof criminals use it and murder people. It needs to be closed.

I do find it funny you can't argue the facts so you try to argue the definition of loophole.

You cannot redefine the word loophole but try as you may.

Here's proof that background checks doesn't stop murders.

BTW you can't close what hasn't been opened.

Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, Stephen Phillip Kazmierczak, the Northern Illinois University killer, Sulejman Talovic, the Salt Lake City's Trolley Square mall shooter and Vincent J. Dortch, the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard shooter were all legal gun owners and all passed background checks.

Jiverly Voong, who killed 13 in Binghamton, NY and Richard Poplawski, who killed three Pittsburgh police officers, both in 2009, were legal gun owners. So was Bruce Pardo, one of two shooters dressed as Santa Claus is recent years, who bought at least five firearms within five months from a single weapons dealer before killing nine on Christmas Eve in Covina, CA.

Latina Williams, the Louisiana Technical College killer who was living in her car, paranoid and delusional and giving her possessions away in suicidal gestures, walked right into a New Orleans pawn shop and bought a .357 revolver and a box of ammunition the day before the shootings. Hey, she had rights. Jennifer Sanmarco, the Goleta postal facility killer was also a legal gun owner. So were Terry Ratzmann, the Milwaukee church service killer, Chai Vang the Wisconsin hunter killer and Bart Ross, who killed a Chicago Federal judge's husband and mother.


Most Mass Shooters Pass Background Checks

You have a serious argument there that all guns should be banned. I'd just like background checks for all sales. This guy couldn't pass a background check
Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem | Blog | Media Matters for America

Let me see if I have your position down.

If we had background checks on private sales of weapons Radcliffe Haughton wouldn't have been able to kill his wife even though he already had guns before he bought the handgun he used.

Makes sense, if you ignore the fact that he already had a gun and that the IED he used wasn't covered by background checks either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have a serious argument there that all guns should be banned. I'd just like background checks for all sales. This guy couldn't pass a background check
Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem | Blog | Media Matters for America

On the contrary. I presented a good argument why more law abiding citizens should be armed.

Again the story is bogus in that no loophole was involved.

You libtards really need to learn the definition of words and stop trying to redefine them to fit your agenda.

He bought a gun without a background check and murdered people. Nothing bogus about 3 dead people.

If he hadn't bought the gun that would have prevented him from using his assault rifle, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

After posting an example of someone using a private sale to avoid a background check and then killing 3 people. Yes I do. I guess 3 lives mean nothing to you? I guess waiting for a background check isn't worth saving lives to you? Wonder how God will judge that.

Where's your evidence he would have failed a background check?

Where's your evidence that a background check would have stopped him?

Here's the facts. A guy bought a gun from a private seller and killed three people. The absence of a background check is irrelevant because there is no evidence that background check would have changed anything.

He had a restraining order and wouldn't pass a background check.

If that restraining order had actually been entered into the system. Unless you can provide proof it did, you lose.

By they way, the fact that the reporter very carefully points out tha a restraining order made the purchase illegal, but doesn't actually say it was properly entered into the system, tells me he would have passed the background check. Further evidence of this is that the reporter points out that law enforcement never checked to see if he had a weapon after he got the restraining order.

By the way, the police actually would an assault weapon in his home after the shooting, so a background check would have prevented this only if you assume that a handgun is the only possible way to kill someone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He had a restraining order and wouldn't pass a background check.

You're assuming the local authorities reported the required records.

Federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to a domestic violence protective order or who have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. Yet, states have had difficulty identifying and reporting individuals who fall within these categories.

Accordingly, the FBI has encouraging states to provide more complete records to the FBI.

Source:

Oh and I wouldn't call that a "loophole" either. It's more like incompetence.

As we should assume unless you have evidence they didn't.

We should assume that police are efficient simply because it supports your position? Why the fuck would I agree to that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As we should assume unless you have evidence they didn't.

Knowing that states have difficulty and knowing that the order was fairly recent, I think it's fair to assume it would not have shown up on the NCIC database.

But regardless, he legally purchased a firearm and used it in a criminal act.

No it's fair to assume they did their job. Unless you have some facts they didn't.

And if we required background checks on private sales he couldn't have bought that gun. So clearly we should require background checks on private sales.

I do have some, thanks for asking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As has been discussed on this thread several times private sales don't require any background check. You'd have figured that out if you read the link. The shooter who killed 3 and injured 4 used this loophole when he couldn't have bought from a dealer. Sounds like proof we need background checks on all gun sales. Again I win. Now please stop arguing from emotion. Calling me a liar when the article is clear about the loophole is just childish.

You must have a problem comprehending English, there is no loophole in the law. A loophole is a area of a law that is designed to prevent something that doesn't actually prevent it. An example of this is a law that is intended to make drugs illegal that specifically defines drugs by chemical composition that allows a clever person to reformulate the drug to avoid the law. Since the law was never intended to cover sales between private individuals it is only a loophole in the minds of idiots.

Wow you guys are so owned you argue the definition of loophole. That is funny.

Almost as funny as you arguing that the proper position is to assume that the government is efficient unless I can provide evidence it isn't.

 

[Brain357]

You must have a problem comprehending English, there is no loophole in the law. A loophole is a area of a law that is designed to prevent something that doesn't actually prevent it. An example of this is a law that is intended to make drugs illegal that specifically defines drugs by chemical composition that allows a clever person to reformulate the drug to avoid the law. Since the law was never intended to cover sales between private individuals it is only a loophole in the minds of idiots.

Wow you guys are so owned you argue the definition of loophole. That is funny.

What's funny is that you're so ignorant, they have to argue with you because you can't accept the truth. You think because some propagandist used the term incorrectly to try to have a pithy sound bite, it makes it true? THAT'S funny.

Actually it's true because it fits the definition as I've shown several times.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow you guys are so owned you argue the definition of loophole. That is funny.

What's funny is that you're so ignorant, they have to argue with you because you can't accept the truth. You think because some propagandist used the term incorrectly to try to have a pithy sound bite, it makes it true? THAT'S funny.

Actually it's true because it fits the definition as I've shown several times.

Except the intent, and actual words, of the law is to allow private sales of guns without background checks. Which is why this is only a loophole in the minds of anti-gun-conspiracy-whackadoodles.

 

[Brain357]

Where's your evidence he would have failed a background check?

Where's your evidence that a background check would have stopped him?

Here's the facts. A guy bought a gun from a private seller and killed three people. The absence of a background check is irrelevant because there is no evidence that background check would have changed anything.

He had a restraining order and wouldn't pass a background check.

If that restraining order had actually been entered into the system. Unless you can provide proof it did, you lose.

By they way, the fact that the reporter very carefully points out tha a restraining order made the purchase illegal, but doesn't actually say it was properly entered into the system, tells me he would have passed the background check. Further evidence of this is that the reporter points out that law enforcement never checked to see if he had a weapon after he got the restraining order.

By the way, the police actually would an assault weapon in his home after the shooting, so a background check would have prevented this only if you assume that a handgun is the only possible way to kill someone.

Right I need to provide proof of his mythical claims. Good one. Love how you guys ignore all the actual facts and just make up stuff.

 

[Brain357]

Here's a nice one. After being denied via a background check this guy went and bought a gun with a private sale:
Private Gun Sale Loophole Creates Invisible Firearms Market, Prompts Calls For Reform

 

[Brain357]

Proof of what? That bureaucracy exists?

Tell me how did the NCIC background check you ran turn out?

Proof his background check would not have failed. He had a restraining order and by law would fail. We need to assume that unless you have proof. You clearly have none so your just making things up. That's pretty pathetic debating.

I have no proof that he would have and you have no proof that he wouldn't have. It's a matter of opinion based on the facts as we know them.

We know that it was two days after the order was issued that he bought a gun. We know that states have difficulty in processing the required reports to the FBI so the data can be inputted into the NCIC database and knowing that government wheels do not always run in a timely and in an efficient manner. So I think it's safe to say he had a greater chance than not at passing a background check.

But again, neither of our assumptions are relevant!

The man legally purchased a firearm??

You claim had the law required the private seller to run a background check the murder wouldn't have happened. A huge assumption on your part.

I asked you to access the NCIC database to see how easy it is to access and you have yet to tell me how well it worked for you.

Just act like your selling yourself a firearm and run a background check on yourself. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

There have been over a million denials. Sorry but your myths don't stand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's funny is that you're so ignorant, they have to argue with you because you can't accept the truth. You think because some propagandist used the term incorrectly to try to have a pithy sound bite, it makes it true? THAT'S funny.

Actually it's true because it fits the definition as I've shown several times.

Except the intent, and actual words, of the law is to allow private sales of guns without background checks. Which is why this is only a loophole in the minds of anti-gun-conspiracy-whackadoodles.

Not sure why you;re still arguing with someone who takes pride in being able to lie to himself.

 

[Brain357]

Actually it's true because it fits the definition as I've shown several times.

Except the intent, and actual words, of the law is to allow private sales of guns without background checks. Which is why this is only a loophole in the minds of anti-gun-conspiracy-whackadoodles.

Not sure why you;re still arguing with someone who takes pride in being able to lie to himself.

No lies in stats, studies, and news.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He had a restraining order and wouldn't pass a background check.

If that restraining order had actually been entered into the system. Unless you can provide proof it did, you lose.

By they way, the fact that the reporter very carefully points out tha a restraining order made the purchase illegal, but doesn't actually say it was properly entered into the system, tells me he would have passed the background check. Further evidence of this is that the reporter points out that law enforcement never checked to see if he had a weapon after he got the restraining order.

By the way, the police actually would an assault weapon in his home after the shooting, so a background check would have prevented this only if you assume that a handgun is the only possible way to kill someone.

Right I need to provide proof of his mythical claims. Good one. Love how you guys ignore all the actual facts and just make up stuff.

Are you getting confused again? You are the one that claimed that the restraining order made it illegal for him to buy a gun, and that the only rational position is to assume that the cops actually entered it. If they entered it, you should be able to prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's a nice one. After being denied via a background check this guy went and bought a gun with a private sale:
Private Gun Sale Loophole Creates Invisible Firearms Market, Prompts Calls For Reform

Want a list of all the murderers that passed a background check? Do you have a few years to read it?