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."

Did you ever read the article "Less guns, more crime in England" I sent you?

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/146/focus/Targeting_a_myth+.shtml

Boston Globe supposedly chages money to get old articles online - but I linked for free just a minute ago.

Just look to poor Britain -- dumbfounded by the rise in violent crime after all its efforts to disarm the populace (yes, "populace". See, I'm a learner!)

I have a vague recollection that I did. So many emails (and links), so little time. Sorry. Thanks, though.

Rand, I won't dispute the byzantine nature of the "facts" which was why I said "seemingly" in connection with "obvious." I realize this is a very complex issue, and that is why I said I am still open to the issue, but inclined toward more control. I have to ponder it further.

I will say I have very concern that the feds are going to come and take away the weapons of the citizenry prior to the emergence of a dictatorship. This is paranoia.

I assume you mean "...little concern..."

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. ;-)

Registration is a necessary first step toward confiscation. Many people would prefer to stay off that particular slope. The history of what eventually happens to countries that disarm their citizens isn't encouraging.

Generally, slippery slope arguments are facile and fatuous because they weight worst case scenarios equally with most likely ones ("Oh, sure, it starts with them imposing fines for overdue library books and the next thing you know they're driving iron spikes into everyone's heads!").

On the other hand, I have every sympathy to the slippery slope arguments concerning gun control, because many of the anti-gun parties (which is what they are) have an incrementalist objective. Some of them, in careless moments of candor, will admit that their ultimate goal is total elimination of all privately held firearms. Combined with the fact that in some states and municipalities such an incrementalist approach has been used, it makes the stakes far too high in my mind to permit any "reasonable" gun controls beyond the ones already in force. People in New York and California accepted registration of firearms, which then led to confiscation. Which incidentally ought to have brought into the question of ex post facto laws, which the Constitution discourages. It frowns upon them. The founders did not approive.

Paranoid? No, more like "once burned, twice shy." Gun control advocates do not argue in good faith - dealing with them is too often like negotiating with the Soviets. Yep, I paint with a broad brush, and perhaps many reasonable people really do wish nothing more than reasonable gun control laws (but first they have an obligation to explain why the ones we already have are not sufficient - without inventing gun show loopholes for mythical terorists to buy their nonexistent rocket launchers). But the well has been poisoned - gun owners are not going to trust gun controllers. No matter how many of them paint us (er, uh, I mean "them") as retarded redneck morons.

yes, "little concern" - thanks

Being that I a so removed from the "culture," it amazes me to hear such obviously intelligent people sound so...jumpy.

Mr. Olsen- imagine the company that manufactured your car calls you up and says there's a safety issue and it needs to be dropped off at a shop immediately. No worries, they'll do what needs to be done free of charge and return it to you in a timely manner. So you drop your ride off- the man behind the counter says it'll just take a day or so, and they'll call you to pick it up as soon as possible- and you walk home.
Twenty years later, you STILL walk to get wherever you go...as soon as the manufacurer had all of its cars in hand for the bogus "recall", it announced that nobody should have that model and all of the cars in its hands were to be melted down. Evidently this was what was planned all along; the 'reasonable safety issue' was a blind. Welcome to the world of being an Irish handgun owner.
How's about, you return the registration card on your new side-by-side refrigerator...and the next week, there's a heavily armed SWAT team outside your door who demand that you turn over your refrigerator...and, as long as they're there, go ahead and search your house as well (without benefit of warrant). Welcome to the world of New York City under David Dinkins, who called out the NYC SWAT teams to confiscate registered 'assault weapons'. Don't get me started on California or Massachusetts...
Like the man said, sir, if you're not outraged- you haven't been paying attention.

Eric, You may have little concern about the government but the rest of us have a fair amount. Gun laws have typically been followed by more stringent gun laws, and laws that were for only handguns have typically been extended to long guns. And it's not paranoid when the antigunners themselves say that their goal is confiscation (and in Rosie O'Donnel's case, confiscation and jail for the gun owner).

And where does it lead? The post above noted the drastic increase in crime in Britain following the confiscation. How do they deal with it? They are expanding warrantless searches, jailing people for carrying nongun weapons (including tools), and restricting the rights to counsel and to jury trials.

The problem is that you are not concerned because you are not affected (for now). The 20th century was full of examples like this, and not just guns. The income tax was originally supposed to be just a small (3%) tax on the wealthiest people. The AMT was just supposed to affect the richest people. The death tax also. The Great Society was supposed to be just a safety net. "Civil Rights" was supposed to mean equal rights. Equal Opportunity was supposed to mean equal opportunity. Need I go on?

Slippery Slope arguments may or may not be strong (Dave Kopel has done an excellent piece on this topic), but they are certainly stronger when backed by experience. And paranoics do have real enemies.

Why are we jumpy about the government and guns? Because the government is the most powerful institution in the country. If Bill Gates walks into your house and demands that you use his OS on your computer, you can tell him to get the fuck out of your house. If he doesn't leave, you have every right to defend your property. You don't want to pay taxes, or a fine that you got, good luck doing the same thing.

The abolitionist have done a very interesting rhetorical trick. We now need to justify the ownership of guns. So here goes. I'm sure everyone has heard of MAD. It kept us out of a nuclear war for close to 50 years. It works on a personal level, too. This is why we won't get the Wild West shootouts that are predicted. If I have a gun and am confident that the rest of the law abiding populace doesn't, I am more likely to pull my gun and use it. If I am in a situation where I am surrounded by people that likely are also carrying, I am extremely reluctant to pull my gun, since I will be outgunned. Most criminals are extremely rational people, just incredibly risk tolerant. They accept the possibility of prison time for their actions because the pay off is high in relation to the jail term. When I was in college back in the early 90s, we discussed this in an economics course. On average, there was about 30 prison days served in California for every crime committed.(Number of days served in the entire state by every inmate divided by the number of reported crimes) This calculus makes crime pay to some people. When concealed carry laws are introduced not only are prison days involved, but the possibility of armed resistance enters the equation. Bodily injury and death become a real possibility, not just far-fetched. With the changes in risks, but the payoffs being the same rational criminals will seek ventures either having higher payouts or lower risks of violent endings.

I for one am in favor of turning the playing field back in our favor and force the abolitionists to answer why they favor increased incidences of rape in our society? Why do they want to make it easier for a women to be violently attacked and violated? Because at the end of the day, that is what they favor. Taking away the one thing that the smallest and weakest members of our society can use to gain the upper hand in a physical confrontaion.

Got yer back, Joe.

As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society".

I do not believe most criminals are that rational. Most criminals are stupid and impetuous.

>I do not believe most criminals are that
>rational. Most criminals are stupid and impetuous.

Believe what you like. Meanwhile, Lott and others have literally years of research statistics that say otherwise.

I am not talking about the drug addicted criminals. They are not rational. Generally speaking, addicts are excluded from discussions of rational action.

What you confuse for stupid is properly charecterized as risk tolerant. Most people would think any risk that could result in a 5 year jail sentence would be something to avoid. I think it is stupid to go skydiving or bungee jumping because the risks/benefits are out of line. That doesn't make the people that enjoy doing those things stupid, only more tolerant of risk than I.

.