Jeff Goldstein answers Brian Linse’ question about why there isn’t a “gun-show loophole.”

To really deal with this issue, we have to have a common understanding of what the word “loophole” means.

Most people take it to mean a gap in the law that permits those who take advantage of it to bypass the intent of the law. At least, that would be my definition.

So, as Glenn says (as quoted in Jeff’s response), those who call this a “loophole” are making an implicit argument (but not one that many of them want to make explicitly, because they know that once it’s out in the open, that they’ll find few who agree with them)–they are saying that the intent of the law is to ensure that no guns are ever sold from one person to another without a background check.

Thus, those who complain about gun-show loopholes would have to show (perhaps from the findings or report language of the legislation) that this was indeed Congressional intent.

If they can’t do so, then they should stop disingenuously calling it a loophole, and call it exactly what it is–a legitimate (and intended) exemption for non-dealers.

[Update at 8 AM PDT]

Eric Olsen has weighed in:

I can honestly say that I do not know which is more important: a citizen’s right to unfettered access, or the seemingly obvious fact that the more guns there are, and the more people who have them, the more likely it is that someone will get shot.

“Seemingly obvious” != True

Certainly, in a society with zero guns, the chances that someone will get shot with a gun is zero. But beyond that, once guns are introduced, even a crude game-theory analysis will show that there’s no obvious simple correlation between numbers of guns and numbers of gunshot victims–there are too many variables, and the payoff matrices become too complex. Probably Lott has done as much work on this as anyone. And his work is not just theoretical–he can back it up with hard statistical data from the various experiments in various states.

For instance, if only criminals have guns (which is, unfortunately, the end result, if unintended, of many measures urged by gun-control proponents), then the number of gunshot victims might be high, or low, depending on whether the intent of the criminals is to cause mayhem, or to simply extort the citizenry. If the latter, it would be possible for them to get what they want by simply brandishing the weapons, against which the law abiding would have no defenses.

If the goal is mayhem, and the criminals just shoot people for the hell of it (which, unfortunately, some criminals do) then allowing criminals only to have guns will probably maximize gunshot victims.

In the latter case, if concealed carry is allowed, the citizenry can now defend itself, and the number of guns increases. Does this increase the number of shootings? It depends. If the weapons are used to deter the criminals, the number of shootings actually goes down. If the deterrence doesn’t work (say, because the criminals are crazed on drugs, or otherwise irrational), the shootings might go up, or go down, but at least it’s criminals being shot instead of just the law-abiding.

But to me, it’s not at all obvious (seemingly or otherwise), that “more guns means more gunshot victims.” And in fact, that’s precisely why Lott titled his book, “More guns, less crime.”