The Gun Show "Loophole" Fraud -- Part I

Josey1

The Gun Show "Loophole" Fraud -- Part I
by
Larry Pratt
A recent issue of U.S. News & World Report (8/26/02) featured a cover story headlined "The Art Of The Hoax" which exposes a variety of what are called "elaborate swindles, outrageous gags and insidious disinformation campaigns." But, missing from this long list of hoaxes is one of the biggest frauds ever: The attempt by many gun-grabbers and their organizations to convince us that there is a gun show "loophole" problem which must be solved by -- you guessed it -- passing more gun-control laws.

For openers, let's begin with the dishonest semantics, the twisted linguistics of the "loophole" con-job. And let's start here because language is important, as George Orwell noted in his famous 1946 essay Politics And The English Language.

In this essay, Orwell points out that language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.... But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.... Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

And if ever there was an example of ugly, inaccurate, foolish, corrupt and lying language which, in reality, is nothing but pure wind, it is all the hysteria about the so-called gun show "loophole."

First, there is no such "loophole."

David B. Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado. Alan Korwin is author of the book Gun Laws Of America. They note, correctly: "Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold... people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale.... This is not a 'gun show loophole;' it is simply a reflection of the fact that the federal government does not require record-keeping by occasional firearms sellers who are not 'engaged in the business.'"

OK. Got it? Pretty simple, huh? Of course, if you're intellectually honest -- which the pushers of the gun show "loophole" lie are not. But, even though a blatant lie, the use of the fraudulent gun show "loophole" phraseology is still instructive in that it reveals the warped mindset of those who want us to believe this hoax.

The virulently anti-Christian reprobate H.L. Mencken once said, falsely, that the Puritans were those people who had "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." This, as I say, was not, and is not, true.

But, it is true that something similar to what Mencken said about the Puritans can be said about those folks who are always babbling about "loopholes" in the Federal law. What these Big Government, totalitarians mean when they speak of "loopholes" is any area of American life that is not regulated by a law passed in Washington DC, any area of human activity not yet wrapped in Federal red tape and under the tyranny of (usually) non-elected bureaucrats
http://www.gunowners.org/op0241.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

The Gun Show "Loophole" Fraud -- Part II
by
Larry Pratt
In my previous column, I exposed the sleazy, lying language, and warped mindset behind the effort to try and convince us that there is a so-called gun show "loophole" when there is no such thing. It is a hoax.

Now, let's take a close look at some of the motley crew, some the Chicken Littles who are screaming the loudest about this mythical gun show "loophole" problem: U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.); U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.); Arnie Grossman, co-president of SAFE, a Colorado-based group whose full name is "Sane Alternatives To The Firearms Epidemic;" the Brady Bunch (of course) and last, and certainly least, the misleadingly-named Americans For Gun Safety.

McCain has said the gun show "loophole" is "dangerous" because "right now the law doesn't cover most of America's gun shows." He says gun shows "are the second leading source of illegal guns recovered in gun trafficking investigations." And he's said: "It just makes no sense to allow criminals and terrorists to evade background checks at a time when we are tightening homeland security."

Lieberman has said the non-existent gun show "loophole" means "criminals are getting around the law and buying guns with no questions asked." Rep. DeGette has been paraphrased by the Rocky Mountain News (6/16/98) as saying, preposterously and falsely, that the U.S. Justice Department "estimates that 70 percent of the weapons used in crimes are purchased at the 2,000 to 5,000 gun shows held nationally every year."

SAFE's Grossman says "most guns used for criminal purposes are purchased at gun shows." Sarah Brady warns, frantically, that: "incredibly, our soldiers could be gunned down by foreign terrorists armed with firearms purchased at American gun shows." And, Americans For Gun Safety ads assert that the gun show "loophole" allows convicted criminals, suspected terrorists, and prohibited aliens "to have all too easy access to guns."

OK. So, it's put up or shut up time.

What evidence do any of these folks have to support what they say? What data do they have showing how many guns are used in crimes that were bought from unlicensed sellers at gun shows? Remember, please, the "loophole" problem, supposedly, is the fact that unlicensed sellers at gun shows do not now have to conduct background checks.

Well, after waiting several days for a reply, McCain's press aide, Rebecca Hanks, says she's been looking for this requested data but is "unable to find it. I just haven't seen any data. That's my problem." She refers us to Americans For Gun Safety. So, the Senator is using their data? Says Hanks: "We have no reason to believe their data is wrong." But, there is every reason to question AFGS' data as we will see in a future column.

Lieberman's press aide, Casey Aden-Wansbury, refers us to Leslie Phillips of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee for the relevant requested data. Phillips refers us to Americans For Gun Safety. So, whatever they say is your data, too? Says Phillips: "I think so. We have relied on them very heavily."

Nobody from Rep. DeGette's office gets back to us to give us a source for her wildly inaccurate "70 percent" figure. But, then how could they? There is no such data. What she alleges is not even remotely related to anything we know about gun show "loophole" sales of guns used in crime -- which is virtually nothing.

Arnie Grossman of SAFE says, at first, that he does not remember saying "most guns used for criminal purposes are purchased at gun shows." Then, almost in the same breath, he does remember saying it though he admits what he said was "a little misleading." So, he wants to "clarify" what he said. He says his point was that when criminals want to buy guns from a legal source, the "vast majority" go to gun shows as opposed to dealers.

Q: What is your source for this assertion?
A: FBI figures of national crime statistics about three years ago. God, this is all so old now. I'm just trying to remember.
Well, try harder, Arnie. Paul Bresson, a press specialist for the FBI, says, concerning what Grossman says: "We have no stats for that or any data regarding gun shows."

So, there you have it. An anti-gun group justifies its push for gun control by appealing to FBI statistics which don't exist. And two prominent U.S. Senators who have led the fight to close the gun show "loophole" support their statements by mindlessly regurgitating what they are fed by Americans For Gun Safety. This, of course, raises obvious questions: What, exactly, are the folks at AFGS feeding McCain, Lieberman and the public through their ads? And how reliable is the AFGS information? I'll take a detailed look at AFGS answers to these and other questions in my next column.

Oh, and the Brady Bunch has no data re: guns used in crime that were sold through the so-called gun show "loophole." And poor Arnie Grossman, who led the fight in Colorado to close this "loophole," clearly has no idea what he's talking about. But, because he is so uniformed, and what he says is so revealing re: the mindset of the gun-grabber, I will, in my final column on the "loophole" fraud, write at some length concerning an interview with him.
http://www.gunowners.org/op0242.htm


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

The Gun Show "Loophole" Fraud -- Part III
by
Larry Pratt
In my previous column, I reported how Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) have no data of their own regarding the so-called gun show "loophole." Instead, they rely completely on Americans For Gun Safety for their respective views that this "loophole" is a problem that must be solved by yet more gun control laws. So, to find out what, exactly, AFGS has to say on this subject, Matt Bennett, the group's Director of Public Affairs, was interviewed.

Q: "What data do you have that shows how many guns are purchased through this 'loophole' and are then used in crimes?"
A: "We don't have numbers on that because they're very hard to get unless the government collects them."
Bennett says the "most persuasive" data concerning the "loophole" problem is that the ATF has said that gun shows are the second leading source of guns recovered in firearms trafficking investigations.

But, right off the bat, Bennett is wrong.

In an interview, Jim Crandall, a Program Manager in Public Information for the BATF in Washington DC, says the BATF tracing study cited by Bennett tells us nothing about how many guns sold by unlicensed sellers at gun shows are used in crimes. "Right," he says. "We just have no way of knowing that.... Because we don't have gun registration, per se, and, believe me, a lot of people in the country still love it that way."

Well, amen, Jim! Count me as one American among those who love this status quo!

Crandall says "certainly not," that all the weapons BATF traced cannot be assumed to have been used in crimes. He adds that once a gun leaves a seller's hands, "we can't say if it'll be used well or misused." He reiterates that ATF tracing studies do not say which guns are sold by unlicensed sellers at gun shows: "No, we don't audit those. [There are] no studies on that".

Then, Crandall makes a surprising statement. He says the ATF does not view the so-called gun show "loophole" as a big problem. He says the ATF has no position on legislation to close this "loophole." He says the ATF has never even testified on this subject. So, how much of a non-problem is the gun show "loophole"? It's so much of a non-issue that the ATF doesn't even care about it!

Back to Bennett.

Although he has already said that he has no numbers showing how many gun show "loophole" guns sold by unlicensed sellers are used in crimes, Bennett says guns going into the black market is "a huge problem." But, he guesses that "the overwhelming majority of guns, 99 percent, that are sold are never used in crime or any illegitimate purpose." He guesses that the "vast majority" of private gun sales at guns shows are to "law-abiding citizens." He says his organization just wants to catch the "relatively small number" used for bad purposes.

When it is said that the real problem is that groups like his use the word "loophole" to mean any area of life not yet regulated by Federal law, Bennett says: "Look, you gotta ask: Why is someone buying a gun from a private seller? Is it for a better price? Is it the gun they want? Or is it because they're trying to avoid a background check?" He adds that there's no question in his mind that most people who buy from private sellers are those who want to avoid a background check and therefore are "illegitimate buyers."

But, of course, the real problem here is the "loophole," the empty space, between Bennett's ears. And he contradicts himself. He's way too suspicious and with no data to support his suspicion. I mean, there are numerous legitimate reasons for buying guns from a private seller. To say that most people who do this are "illegitimate buyers" is absurd. In fact, Bennett himself said previously that he guesses that the "vast majority" of private gun sales at guns shows are to "law-abiding citizens!"

Bennett says the only "loophole" they want to close is the private seller "loophole" at gun shows. He emphasizes that the law they want passed "wouldn't have any impact on people selling their guns out of their own home or through newspaper classifieds or any of that."

But, from their own perspective, this makes no sense whatsoever. Bennett is told about a 1997 Justice Department Bureau Of Justice Statistics poll of inmates serving time in state prisons who were asked how they obtained their guns? Those who bought guns from a gun show were .7 percent. Those who got their guns from friends or family were 39.6 percent!

Q: "So, why do you want to leave open the friends-and-family 'loophole'?! This makes no sense, from your point of view!"
A: "Because traffickers are not buying guns from homes or paper ads but at large events such as gun shows."
Q: "But, certainly, if you pass your gun show 'loophole" bill, sales would no doubt increase and shift to friends and family and from newspaper ads, would they not?"
A: "Well, look, we've never alleged that [closing the gun show 'loophole'] is going to shut down criminal access to all guns." He says they're just "trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns."
Q: "No, you're just making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get guns."
A: "No! Tell me how."
Bennett is reminded that he himself has already said that he guesses that: "the overwhelming majority of guns, 99 percent, that are sold are never used in crime or any illegitimate purpose." He guesses that the "vast majority" of private gun sales at guns shows are to "law-abiding citizens." Thus, any new gun-control laws will, obviously, impact mostly law-abiding citizens!

No reply.

So, the prosecution rests. The case for closing the gun show "loophole" must be dismissed for a lack of evidence showing that this "loophole" is a problem. To repeat what she said, Rebecca Hanks, press aide to Sen. John McCain, says, regarding the evidence supplied to her boss by Americans For Gun Safety: "We have no reason to believe their data is wrong." A truly bizarre statement since the folks at AFGS have no data showing that the gun show "loophole" is "dangerous," as McCain has said.

In my next and final column, for now, regarding the gun show "loophole," we'll peer, in some excruciating detail, into the mind of Arnie Grossman, who reveals in an interview that a mind is, indeed, a terrible thing to waste.

http://www.gunowners.org/op0243.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

The Gun Show "Loophole" Fraud -- Part IV
by
Larry Pratt
A brief recap. In a previous column we mentioned Arnie Grossman, co-president of Sane Alternatives To The Firearms Epidemic (SAFE) -- a group that led the fight to close the gun show "loophole" in Colorado. Grossman was saying in an interview that the "vast majority" of criminals who want to go to a legal source to get guns go to gun shows. What is his source for this assertion? He says he thinks it was some FBI national crime statistics. But, Grossman is wrong. An FBI spokesman says, flatly: "We have no stats for that or any data regarding gun shows."

OK. Recap completed. But, there's much more Grossman said that was wrong. And it's worth examining in some detail since what he says gives us a valuable, though distressing, insight into the mind -- or, more accurately, I should say the mindlessness -- of a gun-grabber and his utter disregard for the facts. And remember, please, the so-called gun show "loophole" is the number of private sellers at gun shows whose customers are not required to undergo a background check.

Q: "You have said that 'most guns used for criminal purposes are purchased at gun shows.' But what data do you have that shows that any of the guns sold by private sellers at gun shows are used in crimes?"
A: "We don't. No one has those figures because there's no tracking, no paperwork to track. We can only estimate and conclude that we don't have hard numbers and that is one of the problems."
Well, no Arnie, that's one of your problems!

Q: "Then, with no data, you can't prove there's a gun show 'loophole' problem."
A: "Yes, we can."
Q: "How?! If you don't know how many guns were sold through this so-called 'loophole,' and how many of these guns were used in crimes, how do you know this is a problem?"
A: "Well, that's a good one. But, uhhh -- why don't we get back to -- you take the total number of estimated sales at gun shows and subtract out those sold by licensed dealers -- there was a number, something like 15 percent of all guns in homicide investigations were purchased that way by an unlicensed seller at a gun show. And I can't tell you how it all came out. But, that's a number that came from police departments and the FBI. But, boy. I'd sure like to go back and refresh my memory on this. It could be bad information."
What is being discussed, of course, are guns sold by unlicensed sellers at gun shows and not what Grossman refers to which are guns purchased by unlicensed sellers at gun shows. And, once again -- Earth to Arnie! -- the FBI says it keeps no gun show data! As for the allusion to "police departments," who knows what this means? There are thousands of such departments in America.

Oh, well. As even Grossman seems to anticipate, he could be giving out "bad information." I'd say: Bet the farm on this fact.

Still, still, despite his admitted lack of any data, Grossman says the gun show "loophole" is "an enormous problem!"

Q: "But, neither you nor any gun-show-"loophole"-closer are able to cite any data proving this!"
A: "You don't think 2,000 deaths of children is proof there's something wrong with the accessibility of guns?"
Q: "Annually?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "You're saying 2,000 children a year are killed by guns bought at guns shows from unlicensed sellers?!"
A: "Killed by easily accessible purchases which includes gun shows, on street corners, over the back fence."
Q: "But, you're being asked a narrow question: What data do you have proving the gun show 'loophole' is, as you say, an enormous problem?"
A: "To me, there's no such thing as narrow when there's even one death of a child with a gun purchased at a gun show." He suggests that if it's "hard facts" that are being sought on the subject of the gun show "loophole," independent sources should be contacted.
Q: "But, there are no hard or soft or any facts that prove what you say!"
A: "I wish I could help you. The one thing that is hard to nail down is the number of people who in fact bought their guns at gun shows!"
Well, thank you, Arnie Grossman! But, if this is true, as you admit -- and it is -- then why are you saying the gun show "loophole" is an "enormous problem!"

Grossman goes on to say that yes, he is indeed for a Federal law closing the gun show "loophole." Why? Because, he says (are you seated?), it would be "a lot easier" to do it this way. A lot easier to have a Federal law regulating all 50 states, from Washington DC?! Yep, that's what the man says.

But nothing is ever made "easier" by passing a Federal law. A case in point is the McCain-Lieberman bill to, supposedly, close the gun show "loophole." It is almost 4,000 words long and a bureaucratic nightmare that would regulate scores of things having nothing to do with any alleged "loophole." When this is pointed out to Grossman, he agrees that the McCain-Lieberman legislation is "problematic."

Not surprisingly, Grossman says he is personally for legally-required background checks for all private purchases of guns -- though his organization is not. And he's for this because "the gun is an object designed with a primary purpose of killing" -- another false statement since surveys show that the overwhelming use of guns in self-defense not only never kill anybody but also are never fired!

Q: "So, all killing with guns is bad, even in self-defense?"
A: "No, but all killing is terrible even when justified in self-defense. If anyone came for my family, I'd be the first one to go on the defensive offense."
Q: "And you'd defend your family with -- what?"
A: "If I had a gun, I'd use that. If not, I'd use my hands."
Q: "So, you have no gun in your house?"
A: "I certainly do not. I used to. But after my first child was born, I took it out of the house."
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because I thought it posed a threat. There is no such thing as a totally safe weapon."
Q: "Or a totally safe anything!"
When Grossman and his fellow-gun-grabbers are taken to task for never, ever having anything to say positive about the good uses of guns in the home, like acts of self-defense which must protect and benefit some children, he is not buying this at all. He demands to know where this has ever happened. "Show me just one case!," he says.

OK. So, he is told about one case where there was a gun in the house that might have saved lives. But, because of gun-control groups like his, the law required this gun to be locked up with the deadly result being that two children were murdered by a maniac with a pitchfork. This, of course, is the horrifying story of the Carpenter family tragedy in Merced, California, in August of 2000. Jessica Carpenter, 14, who knew how to use the gun in the house, might have saved her brother and sister. But, the gun was locked up and they were murdered.

No reply. End of interview.
http://www.gunowners.org/op0244.htm


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878