Time Magazine Gets Facts Wrong in Internet Gun Sales
Buying a gun through the Internet is not a loophole, but that’s how the media seems to be picking up on this story. Time magazine noted this in a story titled, “Investigation: Illegal Gun Buyers Have an Easy Time Online,” and offered this misleading passage:
Easy firearm sales over the Internet, through classified sites like Craigslist, may be to blame for a significant amount of the nation’s gun crime, thanks to a loophole in federal firearm regulations that some private arms sellers are taking advantage of, according to a new investigation released Wednesday.
The problem with this reporting is that it implies that someone can go online and order a gun, and with no background check expect it to be delivered. This is not the case. In fact, to purchase a firearm online you need to have a Federal Firearms License or have the item sent to a Federal Firearms License holder. In other words, no license no sale from a licensed dealer.
What this article is really about is illegal sales – and when the term illegal is applied, there is really no “loophole” involved. Criminals don’t look for loopholes and in this case none really applies. What this is about is “private gun sales,” between parties. Again, this is a concern but one the media is blowing out of proportion.
The media again paints this as a way in which there is a “loophole,” but this isn’t true. If private sales were ended, friends couldn’t “trade” guns and fathers couldn’t gift a gun to their sons – at least not without a background check. In other words here this only punish the law abiding, and the private sales of illegal guns would still continue.
DailyCaller.com Practically Praises “National Gun Control Legislation.”
Last week New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy began her push for new gun control legislation with the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 – a bill that is nearly identical to that of New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s bill.
“McCarthy’s proposed fixes include gun-control advocates’ long-sighted target in the national firearms debate — closing major ‘loopholes’ of the milestone Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.”
We find this take on the issue extremely biased, and it is incorrect to note there is a “loophole” involving all private sales.
We at FirearmsTruth.com hope this becomes a major voting issue in 2012. Maybe it will return those such as McCarthy and Schumer to the status of “private” citizens!
MSNBC’s Mika Brezinski Says “Gun Show Loophole Was Closed”
How do you trust a reporter that doesn’t know the facts? Well, Mike Brezinksi of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” often makes strange gaffes – she once stated that “Abraham Lincoln” was her favorite Founding Father, despite the fact that Honest Abe was born in 1809, some 33 years after the Declaration of Independence.
So what do you make of the recent discussion she had with panelists on the show that discussed the gun show loophole. According to our friends at Newsbusters.org, which followed this story, Brezinksi’s husband, an investigative reporter, had bought several AK-47s at a Virginia gun show in an effort to prove how it easy it is to obtain the small arm.
During the segment another panelist noted: “A loophole was closed for a while.”
Brezinski replied, “right.”To which Barnicle said, “and then re-opened when they let the law lapse a couple of years ago.” Brezinski said, “that’s correct. That’s correct.”
Except, it isn’t correct. There was no ban of private sales. B&B (Brezinski and Barnicle) confused this with the assault weapons ban. That’s something entirely different.
But some other notable issues with this debate. During the segment Brezinski looks at the camera and says, “Just close the loophole. Governor Bob McDonnell.”
McDonnell is of course the governor of Virginia. Should a co-host of a news program comment like this, or worse command a politician? And exactly how should McDonnell go about doing such a thing?
Finally, even co-host Joe Scarborough got in on the act, and noted the following:
“Five times to go into the gun show and had nothing but his photo ID from Virginia Tech, and was able to fill up a trunk with semi-automatic weapons. The killings in the New York and New Jersey and the Northeast are traced to those Virginia gun shows. Like I said, the drug wars are being armed, the most dangerous terrorists in our hemisphere, the drug kingpins, are being armed by Arizona gun show laws – c’mon. 90 percent of Americans don’t want this to continue. 90 percent of Americans don’t want to continue, it should not continue.”
Who doesn’t want what this continue, and where does this 90 percent come from? We think most American don’t want to see senseless shootings? We doubt there is even 10 percent that would say, “yeah, senseless shootings I’m all for that.” As for 90 percent wanting the gun show loophole closed, well, that’s just plain wrong.
The so-called loophole isn’t a loophole. And trying to say that 90 percent want it closed it just bad reporting.
Phoenix New Times: Any Criminal Can Get Gun at Gun Show
In a rather biased post for the Phoenix New Times it is suggested that criminals can easily obtain firearms at gun shows, with the writer making the point, “now if you could only buy nuclear weapons this way.” The article further offers biased misinformation:
“The ‘gun show loophole’ as it’s known allows private, non-licensed dealers to sell firearms without the instant background check.”
This is not entirely fair, and it really only tells half the story. What is missing is that is there for private sales, which are not limited to gun shows. The bias continues:
“But in the hillbilly, swap-meet atmosphere of a gun show, folks ain’t too particular about following federal statutes.”
How can you respect a post, even an editorial when it resorts to this level of snide comments and insults? This isn’t journalism, this is school yard taunting, expect that those being taunting can’t even taunt back. What is worse is that this paints the gun show in an inaccurate light. Most of the attendees are law-abiding citizens, but here we have a writer – a liberal by the sound of it – who wouldn’t mind trampling on the rights of the masses because of a few bad apples. This same person would be up in arms if concerts were banned because it disturbed one old lady miles away.
This is yet another example of a narrow minded liberal who hates guns, and draws conclusions without probably ever venturing to a gun show. Of course in closing, the author gives a high-five of sorts to Bloomberg:
“Maybe Bloomberg and other like-mainded politicos can prevail on the U.S. Congress to close the gun show loophole. That seems doubtful with the U.S. House in GOP/Tea Party control. Nevertheless, kudos to Bloomberg for the college try.”
Well, what is this writer doing wasting his talents in the desert? He should hop on the first plane to New York City and live under Bloomberg’s draconian laws.
CSM: Vast Majority Support Background Checks?
In an editorial this week titled “Obama’s small step to slow the flow of assault weapons to Mexico,” The Christian Science Monitor called for again closing the so-called “gun show loophole.” The paper offered this thought:
“And might not gun shows also finally be brought into the criminal background-check system, to close down that loophole – which gunrunners lope through? The vast majority of Americans support background checks on the sale of all guns, even those at gun shows.”
But what is “vast majority” that CSM – or anyone in the mainstream media – talks about? A “vast majority” would imply over 66 percent of Americans want the loophole – if there is any such thing in fact – closed. The truth is that more Americans are against more gun control according to a recent Gallup.com poll that came out just before the Thanksgiving holiday. Few in the MSM, including CSM, picked up on those findings.
So instead outlets such as CSM think they know what the majority really wants. They don’t.
Richmond Times-Dispatch Questions “Gun Show Loophole”
Apparently not everyone in the mainstream media is buying into the reporting from The Washington Post and other anti-gun agenda based news outlets. The Richmond Times-Dispatch offered an editorial titled “Gun Shows: Some Loophole,” noting:
“Since an individual who is not a licensed gun dealer can sell a firearm to another individual without a background check — the “loophole” in question — it might be the case that some of the 107 legally obtained guns were bought through person-to-person sales at gun shows. Or not. There is no more hard evidence for that hypothesis than there is for the hypothesis that half of the 107 legally obtained guns were bought by blond men with tattoos.”
The paper further notes something that many anti-gun zealots refuse to acknowledge, namely that states with less restrictive gun laws are the source of “crime guns.” This is a fact that is stated time and time again, yet with little proof. The Times-Dispatch offers this though:
“Yet gun-control advocates continue to insist that ‘states that have not closed the gun-show loophole are far more likely to be the source of crime guns.’ But were those crime guns bought at gun shows — or from crooked dealers, or perhaps stolen? Gun-control advocates don’t say.”
It is refreshing to see that some newspaper editors aren’t just going with the standard line on guns and gun show loopholes.
Biased News Story Tells One Side of the Story
The Mansfield News Journal offered a very one-sided take on gun shows in a story this week titled “Advocacy group wants check on gun show sales.” While several visitors to a local gun show, as well as those from the group ProgressOhio, were pressed on the issue of the so-called “gun show loophole,” the paper only offered this counterpoint:
“Those who oppose closing the loophole say requiring private sellers to conduct background checks would be costly and time-consuming, and they argue background checks on gun sales have not been proven to reduce crime.”
While this is fairly factual in its statement, and background checks have not been proven to reduce crime, why couldn’t the reporter – who apparently did attend the gun show – actually take the time to do the job and actually interview someone?
