Talk:Gun show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun show article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (Talk | Contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See here for the original. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 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 (Talk | Contribs) 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 (Talk | Contribs) 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)

[edit] Ovehaul

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.[3]"

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)

[edit] 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.[1][2] 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).[3][4][5][6][7] In 2005, Federal Agents arrested a man who supplied automatic weapons to members of a neo-Nazi group at gun shows.[8]