a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by cliffelam
cliffelam  ·  4443 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: My Month With a Gun: Week One

I'm not even sure they know, given their confusion about simple terms like magazine/clip and semi/automatic.

Here's the deal, it is not complicated.

If you are a registered firearm dealer (FFL - Federal Firearm License "holder") then you have to comply with federal, state, and local laws regarding firearm transfers. This includes background checks, local permitting, etc. For example, in some counties in NC you have to have a "sheriff's permit" to purchase a pistol. So if you're a Robison county FFL holder and you see a guy from Wake county, you have to collect his Sheriff's permit before sending him a pistol. If the buyer is from Carteret then you don't. Like that. Horribly complex, a patchwork of laws. But the vast vast majority of gun buys come from FFL holders.

If you are a non FFL then you have to comply with a number of other federal laws (can't sell a pistol to someone under 21, someone you know has a mental illness, etc) and sometimes with local laws. I can sell a pistol to a Wake County resident without asking to see a permit.

When I've sold handguns in the past I've asked to see their CCW because that covers pretty much all the rules.

Anyway, so there is no background check for non-FFL holder transactions. This is the so-called "gun show looophole." Here's the deal: something like 96% of sales are FFL, and something like 99% of non-FFL sales do not take place during a gun show. My understanding is that a majority of non-FFL sales take place between people who are acquainted. Personally, I've bought and sold about as many guns from people I know as from strangers.

I dunno, did I answer your question?

_XC





ecib  ·  4443 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Unless I'm reading that wrong, you can buy a gun at a gun show from someone who is not FFL without a background check as well as buy a gun without a background check from non-FFLs pretty much anywhere else.

I guess I'm not sure where the ambiguity comes from polling saying people overwhelmingly want those exceptions closed, -even when they clarify that the sales are between two non-dealer citizens. Pretty much the only way you can even break even is to word it so family members have to get background checks on family members. That still leaves overwhelming support for increasing background checks to many more gun sales, if not every.

cliffelam  ·  4443 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So, you've never been to a gun show, yeah? The tables are almost exclusively dealers, for various reasons. I've only been to gun shows in NC, SC, CA, VA, TX, TN, MA, and FL, so there may be shows that aren't that way, but I'd be surprised.

But, again, look at the transfer numbers, non-FFL transactions are very very small.

So the reason those polls are ambiguous is that people think (a) it's a serious problem that will (b) make a difference. If you phrased it differently you'd get a different answer.

-XC

ecib  ·  4443 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    So the reason those polls are ambiguous is that people think (a) it's a serious problem that will (b) make a difference.

I think this is an assumption.

    If you phrased it differently you'd get a different answer.

Sure, I already pointed this out. But the key takeaway is no matter how you phrase it (without actively trying to spin the poll), you get a clear majority wanting increased background checks.

    • Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

Fairly unambiguous, but if you drill down:

    "If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.

Still a clear majority. And this doesn't even speak to gun shows. This involves two private citizens making a sale to each other.

People aren't misunderstanding the question here. This isn't that tricky. The poll isn't asking if people think that it will solve a serious problem. Part of the reason this might enjoy such large support is because people perceive it as a small "no-brainer" that might only chip away but should be done nonetheless. That's a guess like your guess. What we do know is that people favor some form of increased gun control. Overwhelmingly.

cliffelam  ·  4443 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Huh, I had not seen that second one.

That first one is completely useless. Is it asked before the second one?

I am always reminded of the "Ban Bi-Hydrogen Oxide" stuff.

Side note: it's not increased gun control, it's control of the transfer process.

-XC

ecib  ·  4442 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think this seems to be a collection of polls rather than one poll with multiple questions. They seem to have a lot of different sources according to the article. It gives the language of each question, but also who polled as I read it.

cliffelam  ·  4442 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I talked to a friend who dug into it and he said his main argument was that it was not geographically diverse. Which makes sense.