I think the whole relationship with "guns" is completely different. We have tons of "guns", but basically no handguns, very few semiautomatics, and absolutely no military style weapons. (Yes - our laws explicitly say that if a gun is a civilian version of a military model, it is banned. It's a good law).

Most importantly we have strict storage laws (you can't drive around with a gun in your car every day, you can't have a gun in next to your bed etc- you have guns in your gun safe, period).

And the reason behind why all this works is because there is a broad acceptance that a gun is a hunting tool or sports equipment, not a tool for self defense, nor a tool for ensuring that government stays in line (we use pitchforks and cobblestone for that).

Gun laws are both the cause and effect of such a mentality. You can't have strict gun laws in a place where people believe guns are essential for self defense and defense of democracy. And vice versa. For the US to end up with sane (yes) gun laws, the water needs to be slowly heated. Generations of tightened gun laws, amnesties etc. Just starting with a ban on just a few types of weapons + adding safe storage requirements would go a long way.

Ah! you've hit the nail on the head why the pro gun people are so adamant about not giving an inch to any sort of increased regulations. Most on the pro gun regulation left do not seem to be able to even fathom why closing the gun show loophole is a non-starter or how there can be push-back against banning guns for people on the terrorist watch list. It's because either are effectively turning the burner on very very low.

Exactly. And people advocating stricter gun laws can't afford NOT be open about this. "We don't want to take your guns, we want to change attitudes so your grandchildren won't wan't to own guns, and most importantly won't feel the need to own guns". That said - gun show loophole is just that - a loophole. Should be fixed.

I think those who want to keep responsible gun ownership also need to realize they have a lot to win from stricter regulation. With the current culture of short-sighted and reactive legislation, the next ban will be rammed through congress after the next terrible shootout - and that's not the law gun advocates want. I think they are mistaken if they believe they can just use the NRA as a roadblock to keep people buying AR's at gun shows forever. I don't think the political climate a generation from now allows that.

>That said - gun show loophole is just that - a loophole. Should be fixed.

The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. It's not a loophole. It's simply the case in most states in the US for private sales you're allowed to sell your gun to another person without checking with the federal government first, something that's not true of dealers.

"It's not a loophole. It's simply [describes something that anyone can see is a loophole]."

It was an explicit compromise that was added in order to pass the original national background check legislation. A loophole is generally something unintended which this was not.

That doesn't appear to be a universally agreed upon distinction. https://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tax+Looph...

> A deliberate or accidental provision in tax law that allows an individual or corporation to be exempt from some provision. Most loopholes are deliberate and are created to ensure that the law is not draconian, to please a lobbyist, or for some other reason.

Well, okay. In that case the word doesn't actually mean much beyond "this is the way the law is". What makes the "gun show loophole" rhetoric dishonest is it has nothing to do with gun shows.

Gun shows are a convenient way to find a bunch of private sellers to easily exploit the deliberately created hole in the law.

Sure, you can call it the "private sale loophole" if you want. Go for it. The agonizing over the semantic merits of the "gun show" part of the term is the same tactic as turning any gun argument into a debate over "clip vs. magazine" or "there's no such thing as an assault rifle" stuff - intentional missing of the point to derail a necessary conversation. Might even call that "dishonest rhetoric".

It's not an attempt to derail "a necessary conversation". There's no conversation, since neither side is going to budge. And it's not a semantic argument, either - you're using misleading rhetoric to misrepresent the law as it exists.

Yes. It seems like an obvious bug...

>Exactly. And people advocating stricter gun laws can't afford NOT be open about this.

People advocating stricter gun laws have been open about their intentions - it's obvious that such people just want to live in a safer society. Gun advocates just assume they're liars and really just want to come for their guns.

This is an excellent analysis

Canada has a lot of guns (not nearly as many guns as the US of course), far more guns than most European nations. It has a far lower gun murder rate than the US. There are other factors in play than just whether guns are forbidden or not. For example, gun laws and the nature of those laws (or lack thereof).

Finland, Norway, Austria, France, Iceland, Germany, Switzerland - seven of the top 20 nations when it comes to guns per capita.

It's the nature of the gun laws, not the forbidden or not forbidden aspect, that plays a far larger role.

What? I could get a gun license anytime I want. Yes, it takes time and paperwork. But unless you're ex-convict or have mental health history, there's nothing stopping you from owning a light firearm. Hunting rifles are easy to get too. Only military-ish style guns are forbidden.

This is in EU country and I believe quite a few other countries are on similar level.