Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:50, 30 July 2009

Firearms Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Merge

Why not merge Gun show loophole into this article. They're both tagged as stubs. I see no reason for two articles on different aspects of the same topic.

If nobody says otherwise in a few days, I'll assume either folks are in agreement or nobody cares enough. Then I'll go ahead and do it. Thernlund 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thernlund 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Loophole verbage

Not wanting an edit war. I just thought some restructureing was in order. Some of it was a tad weird to read. Even now, I think one or two sentences are a bit run-on. Gotta think on that.

The whole adult thing... seems to me non-adults fall into the prohibited possesor category. Does the word "adult" really need to be mentioned? Maybe even the word citizen is a bit wrong. Non-citizen can buy firearms legally. Might change it in a minute.

In the second paragraph I put the "However" back. I do so because the paragraph is in a point/counter-point sort of format. I also saw you removed "yet". Proabably a good call. It's presumptuous, I suppose, to assume that it will one day be tested. I instead put in "to date". Thernlund 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Made some refinements. I added the law box. Too much? Seems like it belongs as the section is sort of pointed at a perceived loophole in the law (even thought, arguably, one doesn't exist). Thernlund 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun show "loophole" question - Copied from User talk:Yaf

Copied from User talk:Yaf.

I don't get this: Another concern is the possibility that a gun dealer could pose as a private seller to circumvent federal law requiring dealer licensing and mandating background checks of firearms purchasers. However, the threshold (number of guns) that differentiates a dealer from a private seller has to date not been tested in U.S. courts.

Determining who's a dealer and who's not is trivial--if they're a dealer, they have an FFL and make you fill out a 4473 for a purchase; if they do not, then they aren't a dealer. The grey area I think you're referring to is what constitutes in the business, which is the condidtion that requires an FFL. You could sell off a hundred guns at a gun show and not be in the business if, for example, you were liquidating a collection. You could buy and sell dozens of guns a year, for a profit, and still not be in the business if the profits were not a significant part of your income. You are in the business if you have the principal objective of obtaining livelihood through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. There is no settable limit for that, as it depends on the intent of the individual, which must be individually determined. Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=70 scot 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point I suppose. So the determining factor is not, and likely never will be, quantity. So how to word it? I think it's a valid concern (dealers circuventing the FFL requirment), and as such think the paragraph should stay. But as you point out, the acid test won't be quantity of sales. Let me see if I can think of something. Ideas? Thernlund 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See here for the original. Thernlund 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording. It's rough I think, and that first sentence is long. See what you think. Thernlund 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Quantity is irrelevant and so is Federal Firearms Status. The US Government does not have the power to regulate INTRASTATE transactions in firearms that do not go through the US mail. Selling a gun at a gun show in your state of residence can only be constitutionally regulated by that State. See the Interstate Commerce Clause--Asams10 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you, the Federal government does NOT. If I were to build a machine gun from scratch, never intending it to leave the boundaries of Oklahoma, and complied with Oklahoma law when doing so (I don't think the state has any laws touching the subject) then should I not be legal? That's what United States v. Stewart was all about, and they weaseled out of it and pointed to Gonzales v. Raich, from which: The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. In effect, it means the Feds can use the Commerce Clause to regulate ANYTHING. scot 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I get that. The question at hand is what is it the seperates a dealer from a private seller? Is it...

• Quantity? (Already decided not)
• For profit vs. not for profit? (Scot alluded to this)
• Operating as a business? (it's own gray area)
• Sale of used vs. new firearms?
• Sale of personal vs. "for resale" firearms? (again, it's own gray area)
• Accepting credit cards?
• The type of bank account you have?
• Having a name you operate under vs. your own name?

The way I'm reading you is that you're saying the ONLY reasons to have an FFL are a) to conduct interstate commerce in the firearms business; and b) to be able to buy firearms from manufactures at dealer pricing. If this is truely the case, I find myself wondering why I don't just go buy 20 retail Glocks the next time I find a sale price and sell them at the swap meet. Screw the background check hassle. I'm certainly morally obligated, but they can regulate my morals can they? That, I think, DEFINES the perceived "loophole", and the law has yet to test it.

However, the criteria that would differentiate a person "in the business of firearms dealing" from a "private seller" has not been clearly defined under U.S. law. As well, such cases have yet to be tested in U.S. courts.

Does this verbage not covney that? Thernlund 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Used to be that FFLs were cheap, and a lot of gun nuts would get FFLs simply as a way to avoid the hassles of dealing with mail-order purchases. But the BATF decided, back in the Clinton Administration, that there were way too many gun dealers, and has been trying to drive as many out of business as possible.

Most of the "unlicensed" dealers, selling at gun shows, used to be licensed, and had their licenses revoked because they either didn't sell enough guns, or because they didn't have a store front.

It seems a bit ridiculous, then, to accuse them of dealing without a license.

--jdege (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

Hello, I just did an overhaul of the page. All new changes are cited (using government reports). I invite the admins to look at the neturality of this page and I urge them to prevent Yaf from continuing his unsubstantiated partisan attack. There is no reason to delete facts with government citations, just because you do not agree with them. I am asking for an admin to intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjohnscsgv (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your government graphic is fine, but when you put it up please don't delete ATF and DoJ studies concerning gun shows.

Blocks

I blocked both User:Timjohnscsgv and User:Yaf for being well over the three-revert rule. When these users come back, we should pursue resolution on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have attempted to clean up this article and present a more neutral point of view. Reinserted the previously cited information that had been deleted en masse. Also edited out the inflammatory tone and tried to make a more balanced article. (Not everyone agrees that "guns are inherently evil".) Yaf 23:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible issues with the article

I'm somewhat knowledgeable in the subject, but have no strong biases, so here are some thoughts I have about the article now:

• Crossroads of the West link. I'm a Salt Laker, so am sort of proud that this is apparently now the largest gun show company in the country, but it seems a little promotional for an external link.
• "Loophole." One of the things that both versions of the article did poorly, in my view, is explain this bit of politics. Its something like "pro-choice" and "pro-life"; the term is politically potent, but it's not (as the pro-gun show version said) a neologism, and it's not a "loophole" as a flat matter of fact (as the anti-gun show version implies).
• US-centric. No comment on the existence of gun shows elsewhere in the world. Do they even exist?
• Criticism. We should cite criticism and avoid weasel words. This is to insure that the criticism is an accurate portrayal of legitimate positions, to avoid fringe views (see WP:WEIGHT), and avoid inserting our own original research.
• Prices. This is totally uncited. Unless pricing is consistent across the nation (and I doubt it is), we should just remove this paragraph. If prices really are consistent, we should get a source for it. See also WP:NOT#Sales.

Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the loophole. The word "loophole" is mentioned only in the title and not in the text. After all, it sounds like a poor choice of words.

The prices section is really weird. It cites an average price for renting a table at a gun show (don't know what relevance does it bear, nor where it came from). Nothing is said about the price of the guns themselves possibly related to prices when buying at an "official" gun shop. Admiral Norton 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the "neologism" and the "gun show loophole" viewpoints are widespread, and are mainstream. I personally don't agree with the term "gun show loophole", and even question that it is a true neologism. However, both of these views are common. Have edited the article to include both, with what I think is a balanced approach. Certainly, we can discuss this in more detail. Nonetheless, I do have problems accepting Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) talking points in this article verbatim, and also feel that "crime guns" and similar inflammatory language clearly doesn't belong in a neutral point of view treatment. Also, have attempted to present a balanced treatment of the 2% research, and restored the graphic, while also putting in the criticisms of the 2% number. Cited information is fine, whether it is pro or con, but to delete all of one viewpoint while inserting just the other is not a neutral presentation. Hopefully, the current version addresses these concerns adequately. Yaf 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cho purchased one of his two handguns (the Walther P22) from an Internet gun show venue." in the last graph of the Legislation section is possibly inaccurate or not well worded. Although Tscom Inc. may sell guns/accessories/parts at gun shows, I can find no evidence that they operate gun shows. They look to be just another internet gun dealer. There are gun shows that have an online presence, but there is no such thing as an actual "Internet gun show". Though the .22 handgun was purchased from Tscom inc. online, Cho would have had to go through a background check at the Federal Firearm licensed dealer, as required by national law, to be transferred the gun locally. Hereward777 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reworded this section to address these issues (hopefully). If any issues are perceived to remain, these can be addressed, too. Yaf (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Positive changes. Thanks. I disagree, however, with the characterization of the auction sites and online gun dealers as gun shows, but I can understand why some would characterize them that way. I'll try to compile a list of referenced gun show aspects and subtleties, not mentioned, to add to the entry that may help differentiate them.

Having attended several gun shows, I can't find evidence to support the "with some actually organized much like the table-type format of the traditional shows", especially in the cited sites, in graph five of the Overview section. Also the only site I can find for Internet Gunshow on all the major search engines is an Ebay gun accessory and survival preparedness products merchant. It really really doesn't support the description, lagging well behind the referenced auction sites in that regard. Maybe the Internet Gun Show mentioned site has expired? Hereward777 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article refers to sites like Auction Arms and GunBroker as "Internet gun shows", which is absurd. They're eBay-style auction sites. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Department of Justice Survey/Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports

I wanted to let everyone know that the answers for each question posed to an inmate has been publicly released: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi-bin/SDA/NACJD/hsda?nacjd+02598-0001

Hopefully this will encourage discussion based on the raw numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.144.114 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis for gun show controversy statement

The citation given to support the statement that all gun shows are controversial does not mention this controversy in the body of the article and in the title it only mentions that there is a controversy surrounding Oregon Gun Shows. That there is currently a controversy surrounding Oregon does not support the statement that gun shows, as an idea, are controversial. It is therefore synthesis and will require a better source if it is allowed to remain in the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

between 25% and 50% of the sellers of firearms

The page states: "The ATF has reported that between 25% and 50% of the sellers (i.e., for the private individual to private individual sale) of firearms at these venues do not possess a Federal Firearms License, and therefore are not required to perform background checks on their customers at gun shows."

This is false. The report cited states that between 50 and 75% of vendors at gun shows had FFLs. It does not state between 50 and 75% of vendors selling guns. A great many vendors at gun shows sell books, knives, collectables, etc. What percentage of sellers of firearms at gun shows do not have FFLs cannot be determined by the source cited.

--jdege (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't believe the introductory sentence needs a comprehensive list of each and every retail item that might be sold at a gun show. Jerky? Then why not tee shirts, hats, MREs, posters, flags, bumper stickers, coins, jewelry, fireworks, handcuffs, pepper spray, tasers, survival gear, etc., etc.? Some of this could be included in the "Overview" section, but it seems a tad gratuitous in the lead. — Satori Son 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is important, if we're trying to get across what gun shows are, to convey the idea that gun shows are more than places where guns are sold. We don't need an exhaustive list, but we do need to communicate the great variety of products offered for sale. (Rubber-band Gatling guns?) --jdege (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was unimportant, just misplaced. I agree that we need to be as accurate as possible in our description of gun shows and what is sold there. But it just seems logical to me for such a list to be included in the "Overview" section, not the very first sentence in the article. Do you object to moving "Jerky" specifically? — Satori Son 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerky is probably the most common item after guns and guns accessories at gun shows. It is at every gun show. Hence, I would favor leaving it in the lead. On the other hand, militaria, clothing, t-shirts, boots, coins, jewelry, dolls, beads, and an assortment of other items is not at all as common for most gun shows. The less-seen items should all be moved down into the body of the article. Jerky, though, is a major part of the gun show culture, more so than even reloading supplies. (Many municipalities ban the sale of smokeless powder inside city-owned buildings.) Yaf (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerky is "probably the most common item after guns and guns accessories at gun shows"? If you can find a reliable source supporting that assertion, I would support leaving it in the lead sentence. Personally, I seriously doubt that. — Satori Son 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Finding a reliable source is probably going to be impossible. That said, there is a survey that indicates jerkey is #3, ahead even of shotguns, at gun shows. Of course, this is not a reliable source :-) Yaf (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I object to "jerky"? No. And you may well be right that a list would be more appropriate, elsewhere. We don't need a list in the opening sentence, but we do need some sort of verbiage that expresses the variety that are gun shows. --jdege (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is accurate to say that gun show vendors carry an extremely wide variety of merchandise, and that information should definitely be included somewhere. — Satori Son 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do object to the term "jerky". Many of the venues (buildings that are being rented) control the concessions and do NOT allow food vendors at the shows. In fact it is becoming downright difficult to find any jerky at the shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.17.171 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nazi items at gun shows

I'm gonna make a case against including this in the article, at least in the state that it's in now. As it stands, the gun show article looks as if it was written by a member of the Brady Campaign. Despite some microscopic number of the total annual attendees of gun shows being Nazis, the article prominently features a large section on "Nazi" merchandise. I've been to a couple dozen gun shows and have never once seen scores of white supremacists gathering to peddle their wares.

I HAVE seen World War II memoribilia, with flags and merchandise geared towards a large number of nations that served in that (and other) conflicts, but nothing evne close to a "Nazi" table. This feels to me like if one were to go to an article about bars and insert a big section on how skinsheads are sometimes known to frequent bars. It might be technically true, but someone not familiar with them would (legitimately) think that every other bar in the country was full of skinheads. I'm not saying that there aren't gun shows where Nazis show up and try to sell things, but that is not indicative of all gun shows, and certainly not their patrons.

This is but one contention I have with this article. There's plenty of criticism of gun shows but no counter-arguments. But hey, I'll settle for one grievance at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrangelove57 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've moved the sentences here until we determine how (if at all) they are relevant to the topic. --Hamitr (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

These items sometimes include Nazi paraphernalia as well of replicas of Nazi material, commonly flags. Media have reported the presence of Nazi paraphernalia at gun shows, including events in Florida, Virginia, New York, Nebraska, Oklahoma, California, Montana, and Washington (state). In 2005, Federal Agents arrested a man who supplied automatic weapons to members of a neo-Nazi group at gun shows.

• Most military souvenirs come from the losing side as war trophies. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gun show firearms and Mexico drug-related killings

While I certainly have no desire to get involved with what is doubtless a highly contentious article about a subject in which I have no expertise, I noticed the line in "ATF Criminal Investigations at Gun Shows" that said "Mexican police claim that 100% of guns used in "drug-related killings" in Mexico, which has strict gun laws, are smuggled from the United States". That struck me as extremely odd - even down in Chiapas, no drug dealer has ever been shot by a gun from Central America? When I followed the cited link to a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html), I saw what may be the problem.

The story was apparently filed from Tijuana, Mexico. It discusses a couple of gun-related crimes in Tijuana that occurred on the same day, then says "The high-powered guns used in both incidents on the evening of Sept. 24 undoubtedly came from the United States, say police here, who estimate that 100 percent of drug-related killings are committed with smuggled U.S. weapons." I read that as saying that "police here", that is in Tijuana, are certain that "he high-powered guns used in both incidents on the evening of Sept. 24" came from the US because "100 percent of drug-related killings" in Tijuana "are committed with smuggled U.S. weapons". Whoever added that section seems to have read it as referring to "100 percent of drug-related killings" in all of Mexico.

Unfortunately, the sentence is somewhat ambiguous. I think that the Tijuana context and immense unlikeliness of every drug related killing (that involved guns) everywhere in Mexico being committed by guns from the US argue in favor of editing that factoid to refer to Tijuana specifically. But as I said at the top, I have no expertise in gun control and the subject is way to contentious for me to just dive in and make changes. I'd like to hear from other folks who've worked on this subject before I get all bold and whatnot. George (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

100% ?!  I'd take this with a big grain of salt even with Washington Post and considering Tijuana only. If the official police website or the local newspapers in Tijuana don't have anything to say about this, I'm for striking the sentence altogether. It also has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows. Admiral Norton 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This article had been one-sided in its description of gun trafficking from the U.S. into Mexico, presenting the case of skeptics without even mentioning the most basic data available from ATF, DOJ and GAO. I have added that basic information in two paragraphs in this section with proper primary source citations. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything on the subject beside opinion-editorial advocacy pieces?

The only empirical academic study of gunshows I have seen is Mark Duggan, Randi Hjalmarsson and Brian A. Jacob, The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from California and Texas, June 2005, rev. September 2008.

Abstract: Thousands of gun shows take place in the U.S. each year. Gun control advocates argue that because sales at gun shows are much less regulated than other sales, such shows make it easier for potential criminals to obtain a gun. Similarly, one might be concerned that gun shows would exacerbate suicide rates by providing individuals considering suicide with a more lethal means of ending their lives. On the other hand, proponents argue that gun shows are innocuous since potential criminals can acquire guns quite easily through other black market sales or theft. In this paper, we use data from Gun and Knife Show Calendar combined with vital statistics data to examine the effect of gun shows. We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths.

I would also note: Gun lobbyists often cite a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey that finds that only 0.7% of state prison inmates who had ever owned a gun reported that they obtained it at a gun show (Harlow, 2001). citing C. Harlow, Firearm Use by Offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice (November 2001). If, as some claim, gun shows represent about 10% of all legal gun traffic but undewr 1% of criminal gun traffic, gun shows are one of the least sources of crime guns.

If individuals do not trade or sell unwanted guns at gun shows, where would they sell or trade them? I have bought used guns from private individuals at flea markets, classified ads in newspapers, estate auction, through social networking, and even at a stateline bar from a New York gambler in need of gas money. If private individuals are barred from gun show transactions (often selling to licensed dealers or collectors), then the transactions go back to the "grey market". Gun shows are actually a more controlled venue than the alternative. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gun Show Loophole Section

I'm a little confused about this section of the article. While the article is able to cite laws as of 2009, the following Department of Justice survey occurred in 1997. Are there any more current articles? It just seemed strange that something 12 years old was placed in conjunction with a citation from the calendar year. There generally were not that many citations on this page either, which is a concern for me.PFS (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)pink fuzzy slippers, July 13, 2009

I agree that this study is a bit dated. Here are two more recent studies that could be referenced:

A 2006 FBI study of criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample “None of the rifles, shotguns, or handguns … were obtained from gun shows or related activities.” Ninety-seven percent of guns in the study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender put it, “he 8,000 new gun laws would have made absolutely , whatsoever, about me getting a gun. … I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold." Ref: Anthony J. Pinizzotto, et al., Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers (August 2006).

A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and was the largest such study ever conducted by the US government. Ref: Caroline Wolf Harlow, Firearm Use by Offenders (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nov. 6, 2001).

Unless something to refute this posted, I plan to add these references to the article. Trasel (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked up the studies that you mentioned. I was not sure if the first one that you cited was the same one that I looked at - could you be a little more specific about your source?

I looked at the second study and have to admit that I have the same issue with it as the study currently up on the article: the survey was conducted in 1997.

Maybe by tomorrow I will be able to look up what is the most recent information out there.PFS (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)PFS July 13, 2009

I continued to look for the first article that you referenced and was still unable to find it anywhere. I do not think that it is properly cited and therefopre will remove it from the page. PFS (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)PFS July 13, 2009

Am I mistaken, or isn't that 2001 BJS study simply restating data from the 1997 survey? I don't believe a new survey was conducted in 2001. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Made some minor edits and additions to this section today. I am assuming that two different articles were previously merged in this section, because the same point about private sellers being exempt from background checks had been made at least three times in three different paragraphs. There was no need for the redundancy. On the other hand, no one had noted that the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act had created the federal language described in this article, so I added that. Finally, those advocating to close the Gun Show Loophole do not oppose private firearms commerce. The recommendation here is not to federally license every individual seller of ban these sales, just to require background checks on the part of private sellers. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I found another problem with this section today. There is a paragraph that was inserted regarding waiting periods that private sellers supposedly have to observe when making private sales at gun shows. The problem is that the Florida statute cited here as the source for this claim does not apply to private sellers. The statute reads:

790.0655 Purchase and delivery of handguns; mandatory waiting period; exceptions; penalties.--

There shall be a mandatory 3-day waiting period, which shall be 3 days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and the delivery at retail of any handgun. "Purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer. "Handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. "Retailer" means and includes every person engaged in the business of making sales at retail or for distribution...

As mentioned in this article, under the definition of current federal law, private sellers are individuals NOT "engaged in the business" of retailing firearms.

I am therefore deleting this section. The issue of waiting periods has never been relevant to the debate over the gun show loophole in any case. The issue is that private sellers do not conduct background checks or maintain records of sale. Forward Thinkers (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion, but then reverted myself. I couldn't verify the information from the source provided, so we should leave it out pending better sourcing. — Satori Son 16:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Checked the source (Brady Campaign) for the number of states that regulate private sales at gun shows and found it to be 17 states, not 11 as previously cited here. I provided an additional current source from Brady to confirm that figure, and a bit more detail on exactly how these states regulate these sales. Forward Thinkers (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links

So I went through the different links for the sources and found that several of them were broken:

The footnotes for: 1, 3, 8, 14, 21, and 22.

The question now is how do we proceed? This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed immediately. If these sources can no longer be accessed, they are no longer credible and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink fuzzy slippers (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, particularly for 21 and 22. I also thought the accusations against ATF were never proven, they logged a significant amount of criminal activity that resulted in at least 19 successful prosecutions. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

With the move around of citation numbers because of added references, the broken link citation numbers are 1, 3, 8, 12, 24, and 25.

The ATF harassment section that Forward Thinkers mentioned is only cited through 24 and 25. Unless someone is able to properly cite this section, I will have to take it down. I will do this Friday (24)Pink Fuzzy Slippers(talk) 13:40, 23 July 2009.

So I took it down, but I think it would be helpful to have verifiable information about the ATF's interactions at gun shows since they do regulate some of the vendors there.Pink Fuzzy Slippers(talk) 12:02, 28 July 2009.

Research and Studies on Gun Shows Section

I created a "Research and Studies on Gun Shows" section here (the BJS Survey paragraph was just standing in the middle of a description of how gun shows generally operate and seemed totally out of place), and added some high-profile studies on both sides of the issue. This section can definitely be improved with some additional research. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I just confirmed that the 2001 study by Dr. Caroline Wolf Harlow cited in this section contains no original survey data. It comments on the 1997 survey data by BJS also referred to in this section. The wording here seems to imply, however, that BJS conducted two independent, original surveys that yielded a particular result. They did not. I therefore will make minor changes to this section to reflect that fact. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Question About Citation to Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial

I have a question about the source for this particular comment in the gun show loophole section:

"Remaining vendors may sell a variety of firearm and non-firearm items. Private sales between attendees or between attendees and non-dealer vendors are not uncommon at gun shows, though they make up a small fraction of the guns sold."

This citation appears to be an editorial in a newspaper instead of academic research. Is there a more credible source out there saying the number of private sales at gun shows? Pink Fuzzy Slippers (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request a more definitive source for the following claim in this section: "Private sales between attendees or between attendees and non-dealer vendors are not uncommon at gun shows, though they make up a small fraction of the guns sold." The source provided for this claim is a 2000 editorial by the Colorado Springs Gazette, which was published after state residents voted to close the gun show loophole through a referendum. Here is what the editorial said:

"...The vast majority of firearms sales at gun shows are at present subject to background checks. That's because most of those who exhibit arms at shows, at least in Colorado, are dealers, who must be licensed under federal law. And those same licenses require them to conduct background checks on customers ... How many such private transactions take place at gun shows? A recent tally by one state gun-owners group at one of the state's largest guns shows, in Denver, turned up a half dozen out of hundreds of gun exhibitors. The rest were licensed firearms dealers."

So the sole evidence for the claim that only a "small fraction" of the guns sold at gun shows are sold through unregulated private sales is an un-cited study by an unnamed Colorado gun owners group that looked at a single gun show in Denver. How did they come to this conclusion? We don't know; no methodology is described. More importantly, there are approximately 5,000 gun shows in the country every year, making one gun show an infinitesimal sample from which to draw such a broad conclusion.

Can a better citation be provided? Forward Thinkers (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The standard to apply here is WP:Verifiability. An opinion editorial published in a medium sized town newspaper like this can at most be used to state an opinion, but not to state a fact. For instance: "It was the opinion of an unknown editorialist in Colorado Springs that only a small fraction of guns sold at gun shows are sold through..." would be OK. But to state flat out that only a small fraction would require a better, more verifiable, source than that anonymous opinion editorial piece. With that logic, I am taking out that sentence now. If better more verifiable sourcing of the "a small fraction" statistic can be found, I would welcome the restoration of the sentence based on that better sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of gun show loophole section

Trasel recently reverted my edit to the opening paragraph of the gunshow loophole section, with the edit summary "Too much POV inference, based on the cited source. The facts are plainly stated.)". Can we talk about this? The version favored by Trasel says "a term created by those who seek to regulate transfers of firearms between private individuals ", which is starkly at odds with what the cited source says: "...an unfortunate loophole that has since been exploited to allow convicted felons and other people who shouldn't own guns to evade the background check requirement by buying their guns at gun shows. ... This situation is dangerous not only because it allows convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns"

Clearly, the source states this loophole is relative to convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns, and not relative to 'private individuals'. The POV push appears to be to try to extend the intent of the source away from criminals towards all private individuals, and this push violates both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. We should stick with the source which describes attempts to close the loophole which is being exploited by criminals. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the cited source is a political speech by a stridently anti-gun politician, and is laced with inflammatory rhetoric. The term "gun show loophole" is in fact a term of art that was invented by those who seek to restrict private, legal commerce. They may *claim* that their goal is to stop felons from buying guns, but the ACTUAL effect of this proposed legislation would be to restrict ALL private intrastate commerce at gun shows. To be fair and balanced, the wiki article should cite references representing a variety of points of view--not just Senator Liberman's. Trasel (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, for example, is alternative point of view, from a conservative think tank: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba349 Trasel (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I take it that you now accept that the cited source describes "convicted felons" and not "private individuals". Your earlier edit summary comment "...at odds with what the cited source says" was incorrect. In light of that, please self revert. Which passage in your new cite are you looking at? I see "mandatory checks will be a step towards banning private firearms sales between individuals", is that the passage? That seems to be describing something as fact that may happen in the future, and would be not appropriate per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Though I would support a statement that critics of the proposed legislation fear that it would lead to a future path towards banning private firearms sales. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I trust that you'll fine the revised wording acceptably balanced and NPOV. I included two cites for the counterpoint view.Trasel (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a big improvement, I really appreciate it. Though, to describe one side as 'gun control advocates' and by name 'Joe Liberman' and the other side as simply "others" (with no mention of their advocacy and no mention of the name H. Sterling Burnett). Especially considering that the declared advocacy of one side is crime control/child safety and the declared advocacy of the other side is gun rights. Using the opponents frame of reference, calling crime control and child safety to be gun control, is an unnecessary framing bias. Not declaring that H. Sterling Burnett is an award winning gun rights advocate also fails to inform the reader of the POV advocacy of that author. Would you continue to work with me to fix this problem? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns expressed here. I don't see why it is necessary to mention Senator Lieberman at all. Furthermore, the opening statement, "The 'gun show loophole' is a term created by gun control advocates to describe the current commerce in firearms that exists within many states," is misleading, making the issue sound far broader than it really is. Why not state exactly what the loophole refers to right off the top? That said, I do like Trasel's addition of the current effort in Montana to evade federal regulation, that is a relevant point here. I am going to make one small change for now. The issue is not stopping people who "should" be prohibited from owning guns from getting them, but those WHO ARE PROHIBITED UNDER FEDERAL LAW from getting them. That needs to be clarified. Forward Thinkers (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

1. "Event at Showplace glorifies Adolf Hitler, Confederacy" (PDF). Richmond Free Press, August 16-18th, 2007.
2. "A call to arms Virginia does not require background checks for all gun show sales". The Roanoke Times.
3. "The Gun-Show Loophole". Dan Herbeck and Lou Michel, Buffalo News (New York),14 June 2005.
4. "Gun Enthusiasts Back New Fla. Law". Jason Wermers, News-Press (Florida),2 October 2005.
5. "Guns, Vitamins and God". Saul Landau, Counterpunch Magazine (USA) ,2 April 2005.
6. "Gun Show Spawns Mixed Emotions". Billy Defrain, Daily Nebraskan,30 March 2005.
7. "At Tulsa Gun Show, Searching for Safety". Lois Romano, Washington Post, 22 October 2001.
8. "Agents Say Man Helped Supply Machine Guns". Paul Shukovsky, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 19 October 2005.

• Unassessed Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics