Virginia’s 11th is an odd-shaped Congressional District stretching from the rural Virginia horse country near Warrenton, then meandering east through the battlefields at Bull Run, and finally racing north headlong towards the uber-metropolian suburbs of Fairfax and Arlington. Nestled near the armpit of the District lies the impressive headquarters of the National Rifle Association. The Washington bad-ass lobbing group, made up of one part gun industry protector and one part hunter’s friend, is the alpha dog among Capitol Hill law pushers. Strangely, this NRA stronghold is represented by the kind of guy the Right loves to hate. Democrat Gerry Connolly is a Harvard-educated, Washington insider who served as a staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
On Tuesday, Connolly faced Republican challenger, Keith Fimian, who is a Second Amendment absolutist. Fimian’s views on guns are so extreme that he famously said: “I think that at Virginia Tech, if one of those kids in one of those classrooms was packing heat, I think that would not have happened … The perpetrator of that crime would have thought twice before walking into a classroom if he thought there was any chance of someone being armed and preventing him from doing that.”
Nothing better for higher education than a good, old fashioned shootout with everybody getting in on the act. Yippe-ki-yeay!!
That ‘s enough to get you a portrait at the NRA or at least mention in its “Armed Citizen” column which mostly extols the virtue of firearms to handle disputes with thieves or robbers. What it didn’t do was get Fimian elected. In a stinging rebuke, Fimian now stands 920 votes behind the Connolly, who in no uncertain terms, made his opposition to the so-called “Gun Show Loophole” a feature of the campaign. The “Gun Show loophole” allows most anyone to purchase a gun from a private seller at a gun show without the federally mandated background checks. The NRA has fought this sensible requirement for years on Second Amendment grounds.
Connolly was aided mightily in his campaign by a moving television ad featuring Omar Samaha, brother of Virginia Tech victim Reema Samaha. The ad seen below pointed up Fimian’s opposition to closing the “Gun Show Loophole’ and thus keeping his NRA street cred. Said Lori Haas, whose daughter Emily was shot and wounded in the Virginia Tech massacre, “We told him [Fimian] his remarks were offensive and he apologized. But we also asked him to take a stand for closing the Gun Show Loophole. He would not make that commitment, and on election day Virginia voters punished him at the polls for protecting criminals instead of public safety.”
Makes one proud to be a Virginian today.
Source: Coalition to Stop Gun Violence website
— Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Mespo:
“I’m just just going to keep him focused on my original question about why checking people at gun shows to screen for felons and crazies has his panties in knot.”
Because, when compared to other measures, it’s a waste of legislative time, a waste of tax payer dollars and a waste of the citizen’s time. You’re talking about less than 1%! You say enforcing the current laws is a cop out. Great, but how ’bout we do that AND THEN move on to other things?
I’ve already suggested many ways to reduce violent crime. All violent crime, not just the 7% that firearms are associated with. Why don’t we do that instead?
I have nothing to contribute to this thread other than to thank all the posters for their remarks as I have learned a few things … this has been an enjoyable read.
Otteray Scribe:
“Actually, private citizens do not sell guns in the gun show venue. I never heard of a show sponsor allowing private sales on the premises.”
*****************************
Responsible gun shows do require FFL for all gun vendors on the premises. That means they have background checks and two forms of ID. Obviously, we’re not talking about those folks. It’s the irresponsible ones that permit any fool with the ability to carry in the weapons to sell that is the problem. If that’s a thing of the past, then wonderful and the point is moot.
A last thought and I am out of here. Mespo writes:
“2. Private citizens who sell guns at gun shows don’t have to run background checks.
3. Therefore private citizens who sell guns at gun shows don’t have to run background checks.”
Actually, private citizens do not sell guns in the gun show venue. I never heard of a show sponsor allowing private sales on the premises. There are indeed private sales in the vicinity, such as the parking lot. Vendors pay a goodly price to have a space and counters, so sponsors are protective of the paying clients. If gun sales were forbidden in the parking lot, they would move somewhere else, which is what happens now. Private sales occur all the time. You can find firearms for sale by individuals in our local newspaper.
Keep in mind that we are talking about one-half of one percent of all firearms seized from offenders, according to the only credible DoJ study I am aware of. Those are guns SEIZED from offenders, not necessarily used in crimes. There are laws on the books regarding straw purchases for felons, just as there are for straw purchases of liquor and cigarettes for minors. Those are the laws that need to be enforced.
I do not know anyone who is not in favor of keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous persons, especially violent felons. The risk factor is personal for me, because I have personally taken guns away from mentally ill and intoxicated persons who should not have them. But the so-called “gun show loophole” is a strawman argument. I repeat: Vendors at gun shows all have FFL’s. Every one of them that sell guns must be licensed. Of course, non-gun vendors such as those who sell clothing, hunting accessories and other such items are exempt.
Gyges-
“Yeah, except that part where you dismiss the possibility of a negative effect with ‘it’s difficult to imagine how they would have made matters worse.'”
As I said, my wording was apparently poor. When I said it was difficult to imagine how it could have been worse, it was a statement about the horrific scale of the crime, not that it was impossible for it to have been worse. I think we can drop this now. I was not clear, now I am.
Call me a cynic, but I’ve learned the hard way that whatever’s good for business is, apparently, good for America.
More guns = more violence = more money for those who make money when there’s lots of violence. So ramp up the fear, get more police on the streets, start looking for people who MIGHT commit crimes, install full-body scanners. Fund fusion centers, give more power to the police, put sophisticated security systems in our colleges (after VA Tech) and everywhere you possibly can. And then screen everyone in the country for mental illness (apparently one of Bush’s proposals, but someone correct me if I’m wrong). And don’t get me going.
Things are incredibly out-of-whack. True story: After VA Tech, a top-of-the-line security firm advised one of the Ivies to build a wall around the campus. I’m serious. This was the proposal. Didn’t wash, of course, but it was actually spelled out as one of the ways to prevent another VA Tech. Are you kidding me????
Bill:
“The FFLs have to run the NICS check no matter where they are at. Private citizens never have to run them. What does it being at a gun show have to do with anything?”
*****************
Thank you for opportunity to explain, once again, the concept of circular reasoning. Your argument goes like this:
1. Firearms dealers who sell guns have to run background checks.
2. Private citizens who sell guns at gun shows don’t have to run background checks.
3. Therefore private citizens who sell guns at gun shows don’t have to run background checks.
You’ve assumed the conclusion in the minor premise. In essence, you’ve missed the point of my argument which is that, while at gun shows, even private citizen sellers should be compelled, by force of law, to run background checks to fulfill their pre-existing duty to avoid sales to felons and crazies. Obviously, gun shows provide a convenient forum to run these checks which a private sale in a private home does not. The gun show is different than a private sale because it brings together all sorts of willing buyers and sellers in arms-length transactions which are both rife with potential to circumvent the law and replete with opportunities for enforcement. That these private dealers don’t have to comply with the law is the “loophole” which frustrates the underlying policy decision which is to prevent felons and crazies from getting guns.
I hate to be so pedantic but your misunderstanding of the rules of logic is quite staggering.
Here’s some breaking news — sorry to run off-topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-suspended_n_779586.html
Jason,
Yeah, except that part where you dismiss the possibility of a negative effect with “it’s difficult to imagine how they would have made matters worse.”
Gyges-
“O.k. find me where you said that the presence of guns at Virginia Tech would have had a cost. Then you get to accuse me of being disingenuous, or a poor reader.”
Jason-
“It is absurd to say what *would* have happened at Virginia Tech had a teacher or student been armed. But it is not wrong to say what *could* have happened. Massacres have been halted or averted due to the intervention of armed, non-law enforcement citizens. It is not unreasonable to propose that an armed opponent at Virginia Tech could have reduced the carnage, and it’s difficult to imagine how they would have made matters worse.”
I thought that saying that proclaiming what would have happened is absurd that I implied that things could go right or wrong. Note the use of “could have” rather than “would have”. If this passage did not constitute at least the implication of potential downsides, then fault my poor writing. I’ve now made it clear that I don’t think guns are magic wands.
test
Jason:
“Why are you so protective of felons and those so mentally unstable giving them guns would be foolish?”
Nice. Are you next going to ask Kyle if he has quit beating his wife?”
********************
No. I’m just just going to keep him focused on my original question about why checking people at gun shows to screen for felons and crazies has his panties in knot. I certainly understand his reluctance to answer the question directly, but the question is why don’t you understand that?
BTW those “boiler plate gun control blurbs” are really called “facts you choose not to deal with.” Lastly, I did talk about Dodge City and how safe it was compared to our current shooting gallery.
Jason,
O.k. find me where you said that the presence of guns at Virginia Tech would have had a cost. Then you get to accuse me of being disingenuous, or a poor reader.
Jason,
In case you’re wondering why I’m making a big deal out of this; it illustrates an intellectual blind spot.
You say “well having guns on campus might have saved those people,” while ignoring the possible increase in shooting that would accompany the guns.
That’s your blind spot. Everything has a cost, the question is: is the cost worth the gain? You can’t answer that question if you refuse to consider the cost.
Gyges-
Point taken. Yes, I can “imagine” how an armed citizen could have made matters worse. I can also imagine Batman swooping in and taking Cho out.
And you are being disingenuous when you suggest that I believe guns are “cost free” in any way. I made it clear that we can’t know what would have happened had someone fought back. And if that’s not enough, I’ll say it more explicitly: guns are not magic force fields. Human beings are fallible and can misuse tools or be prevented from implementing them. They provide *opportunity* for defense, not a guarantee.
Jason,
You said “It’s difficult to imagine” not “It’s improbable,” or “chances are that.” It’s not difficult to imagine. It’s pretty easy to imagine.
I’m not here to argue hypothetical scenarios I’m here to point out that guns aren’t a cost free panacea for mass shootings as you seem to be pretending they are. It’s disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that there is no possibility of negative consequences to the added presence of hand guns in your scenario.
mespo-
Your long list of boilerplate gun control blurbs did not address the point of my Dodge City comment. Concealed carry has skyrocketed in the last two decades. Crime of all types, including gun crime, has plummeted during that period*. The Dodge City stuff is crap.
*I have to repeat this since it gets misunderstood – I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that greater prevalence of carry and gun ownership is responsible for the drop in crime. In fact, I find it unlikely for several reasons.
“Why are you so protective of felons and those so mentally unstable giving them guns would be foolish?”
Nice. Are you next going to ask Kyle if he has quit beating his wife?
Gyges-
“Really? So bullets just automatically go where the person firing the gun wants them to hit and then stop when they hit the target?”
Not always. But they also don’t tend to hone in on any living thing in the area.
“I personally have never heard of anyone getting injured by crossfire. I don’t even know why that word exists.”
If you’d like we can do a little contest. You find reports of legal concealed carriers (which is what I was talking about) hitting innocent people during defensive gun uses. I’ll find as many reports of defensive gun uses where no innocent person was hit. I like my chances of finding more stories by a gigantic margin. In fact, I watch for that sort of thing using various news feeds, and since I’ve been doing so, I’ve seen one incident. There may be more, have at it.
And as it relates to Virginia Tech, really, do you think that a citizen returning fire could have made things much worse? The single worst mass shooting in U.S. history, and you think it’s a good thing that no one tried to stop him because the death toll would have been higher? As I said, other mass shootings have been halted by armed people.
@Mespo
The FFLs have to run the NICS check no matter where they are at. Private citizens never have to run them. What does it being at a gun show have to do with anything?
“Gun-Show Loophole” is a made up term to promote fear mongering. Plain and simple. If the events always happened at McDonalds it would be called the McDonalds loophole. It is termed after the place it is held at instead of an actual problem because it is a made up loophole. Before my long winded and hard to understand topic here is sidetracked by you on the location I suggested or the term, please re-read the first two sentences of my post. It is hard to make it any clearer than that. Until you can answer my question following those two sentences I don’t really see you as having any argument.
Jason,
“It is not unreasonable to propose that an armed opponent at Virginia Tech could have reduced the carnage, and it’s difficult to imagine how they would have made matters worse.”
Really? So bullets just automatically go where the person firing the gun wants them to hit and then stop when they hit the target? Good do to know, that makes hunting much safer and easier.
I personally have never heard of anyone getting injured by crossfire. I don’t even know why that word exists.
Mespo:
You’re asserting something that’s untrue. I am not protective of felons and those so mentally unstable. (Though I do think that non violent felons should regain all their rights once their sentence is up.)
Equating my stance with actively supporting firearms to felons is ridiculous.
You didn’t answer the rest of my comment either.