Private sales at gun show on hold after three hurt in accidental shooting

Tigger said:

I believe that Massachusetts may have a statute on having loaded firearms at a show.

Click to expand...

That does not force them to string a rope through all of the guns as a safety precaution. I don't believe there is a law forcing them to do that.

Tigger said:

In my experience it's more a matter of separating the fireams from the ammunition in general; which is a big thing at all of the shows I've been at here in the Northeast. There is NO ammunition allowed inside the hall at all. Not for sale or carry. All ammunition sales are required to take place outside of the main hall, generally in a tent in the parking lot.

Click to expand...

Again, why? These are responsible gun owners practicing their second amendment right. At least I thought that was the position of conservatives.

Tigger said:

Unfortunately, since nobody is required to have a permit to attend a show, or even have taken a safety class, this separation of firearms and ammunition makes a lot of sense. Whether it's for sale or carry. The potential for stupid people to do stupid things is high enough that it warrants this sort of measure.

Click to expand...

Lol, right. You realize that I can go out and buy a gun right now without a safety class or permit, right? Again, if the person walked in with a gun, that is their personal gun. If they didn't walk in with a gun then the only place they could get a gun is from a responsible gun owner, and don't you think a responsible gun owner would ask about the persons experience before handing over a gun?

THIS WREAKS OF TYRANNY! WHY DO YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF GUN OWNERS BECAUSE OF A STUPID FEW? DO THEY BAN HAMMERS AND KNIVES INSIDE THE GUN SHOW? BECAUSE THEY KILL MORE PEOPLE? WHY DO THEY PICK ON GUNS? WE ARE RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS!!!!

Sound familiar?

This is hilarious, to a degree that I haven't seen in a long time. Follow your own logic here. Tell me if you disagree with any statement that I am about to make.

1. We have the right to keep and bear arms. This shall not be infringed.
2. We can not infringe this right because of a stupid few.
3. With less guns, and less ability to use them, we become less safe, with more guns and more ability to use them (larger clips etc) we become more safe.
4. Even to the point that we should teach and arm school teachers and staff.
5. At a gun show, where there are more guns on site than probably any other place on earth, except for possibly a military storage center or an incredibly large gun store, separation of firearms and ammunition makes a lot of sense, due to the fact that there could be few stupid people around. In the interest of safety, we need to make sure there are no loaded guns being brandied about.

Tigger said:

I do think it's overkill to some degree, but I'd rather err a little on the side of safety than to see some sort of accident occur. Hell, I get muzzle-swept by idiots looking at guns so often at these events, I have to keep myself from verbally abusing half the morons there.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, that would be insane. Could you imagine if there was a place where those morons could go and buy all the guns they wanted without so much as a simple back ground check? Like a gun show or something? But that wouldn't really matter, because then they would just be idiots with guns out in the country, not standing right next to you or anything.

I would like to apologise for my posts, 44, 55, 58 & 65, they were off topic for this thread. I let emotions control my responses and not rationality.

Roughdraft, tell me you're going on and on with this attempt to drum out hypocrisy understanding full well the ridiculous notion of suggesting one's feelings about what's appropriate for a gun show, a private non-government entity, to be able to do and what the federal government should be able to do should be equal when a persons issue is constitutionally based?

I understand the point you're making in terms of "If it doesn't help with safety, why does the gun show do it"...but that only works if the person is arguing against government intervention simply on the "It doesn't work". It also ignores that scope expands issues significantly, sometimes exponentially. It's something I point out often during the "Why don't we do airport security like Israel" debates...something that works on a localized, small, controlled environment doesn't necessarily mean it'll work on a nation wide, more generalized type of situation.

Zyphlin said:

Roughdraft, tell me you're going on and on with this attempt to drum out hypocrisy understanding full well the ridiculous notion of suggesting one's feelings about what's appropriate for a gun show, a private non-government entity, to be able to do and what the federal government should be able to do should be equal when a persons issue is constitutionally based?

I understand the point you're making in terms of "If it doesn't help with safety, why does the gun show do it"...but that only works if the person is arguing against government intervention simply on the "It doesn't work". It also ignores that scope expands issues significantly, sometimes exponentially. It's something I point out often during the "Why don't we do airport security like Israel" debates...something that works on a localized, small, controlled environment doesn't necessarily mean it'll work on a nation wide, more generalized type of situation.

Click to expand...

I understand, one is government based and the other is a private institution that can do whatever they want. But these people are not arguing that it's the right of the gun show to do it. They are either approving of these actions, or at the very least tacitly approving through there willingness to visit and patron said event.

I often here the talking point that more guns makes you safer, how ever apparently that is not true if you also think that a building full of responsible gun enthusiasts would be a dangerous place if you allowed loaded weapons.

They have even gone so far to try to get janitors and teachers and staff at SCHOOLS to start carrying loaded weapons. In order to protect the kids, lol. By their logic a gun show should be the safest place on earth, but apparently it's only the safest place on earth if you don't allow bullets in to the gun show, lol.

I understand the very obvious difference between government intrusion and the rights of a private entity, and I am not arguing for government intrusion in this case. However I do think it's ridiculously funny that gun shows make you rope up your guns while the same people that visit them are thankful for these safety precautions, yet argue that more loaded guns make you safer.

If you can find where I argued that the government should have a right to do something because of the actions of the gun show please point it out and I will retract my statement but I don't remember making such claim.

roughdraft274 said:

Again, why? These are responsible gun owners practicing their second amendment right. At least I thought that was the position of conservatives.

Click to expand...

My position as a Conservative (not necessarily the Conservative position), is that there are certain times and places where carrying a loaded firearm is not a very intelligent thing to do. Regardless of whether or not the law allows it to be done. I am also a proponent of PRIVATE individuals and business owners being able to limit or forbid the carrying of concealed weapons on their property.

In the case of these gun shows it's not actually a matter of carrying a concealed weapon. It's an issue of the presence of ammunition in the exhibition hall that forces the licensed gun owner to unload and "secure" the firearm. The owners and operators of these events have every right to make that a requirement of attending the event.

roughdraft274 said:

Lol, right. You realize that I can go out and buy a gun right now without a safety class or permit, right? Again, if the person walked in with a gun, that is their personal gun. If they didn't walk in with a gun then the only place they could get a gun is from a responsible gun owner, and don't you think a responsible gun owner would ask about the persons experience before handing over a gun?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're from but in the area of the country that I live in (New England) you CANNOT purchase or possess a firearm without a permit and/or a safety class. At least not LEGALLY.

Those individuals who walk into these gun shows may or may not have either. This means that a totally ignorant individual may be walking into a situation where there is a high quantity of firearms to potentially be handled. Most of the individuals with tables at these events are not "responsible gun owners"; they're gun dealers. Their stock and trade is selling firearms. In my experience way too many of them make the firearms on their tables too easily available to the attendees without anywhere near enough oversight or control. Yes, I personally make sure I know who it is that I'm handing a firearm to, loaded or unloaded, every time. Not everyone does that, and definitely not dealers at many of these shows.

roughdraft274 said:

This is hilarious, to a degree that I haven't seen in a long time. Follow your own logic here. Tell me if you disagree with any statement that I am about to make.

1. We have the right to keep and bear arms. This shall not be infringed.
2. We can not infringe this right because of a stupid few.
3. With less guns, and less ability to use them, we become less safe, with more guns and more ability to use them (larger clips etc) we become more safe.
4. Even to the point that we should teach and arm school teachers and staff.
5. At a gun show, where there are more guns on site than probably any other place on earth, except for possibly a military storage center or an incredibly large gun store, separation of firearms and ammunition makes a lot of sense, due to the fact that there could be few stupid people around. In the interest of safety, we need to make sure there are no loaded guns being brandied about.

Click to expand...

Let's see, how about every single one of them to some degree or another:

1. "Shall not be infringed" refers to the Government not creating excessive limitations. It is not a totally open-ended Right.
2. We definitely can, should, have, and will continue to do exactly that. Even in our most basic licensing laws we do it.
3. We don't become safer with more guns. We become safer when responsible individuals are allowed to own, carry, and use the firearms they need to protect themselves, their families, friends, and society in general.
4. We should offer that as an option to teachers and staff who are willing, capable, and interested in doing so.
5. The separation of firearms and ammunition at such an event makes sense due to basic safety precautions, just as one would do when cleaning or repairing a firearm.

roughdraft274 said:

Absolutely, that would be insane. Could you imagine if there was a place where those morons could go and buy all the guns they wanted without so much as a simple back ground check? Like a gun show or something?

Click to expand...

In fact there are very few legal places where one can go and do just that. At least not in this part of the country. I would guess that less than 5% of the firearms I see at gun shows here in New England are Private Sales, and therefore not requiring a NICS check. Here in Massachusetts even Private Sales require significant paperwork to be completed and submitted to the State.

I oppose registration, but not because I am in the Black Helicopter Watchers Club. It is nothing more than the groundwork to impose remote vicarious liability on the last person they can prove that owned the gun when the gun is later misused by someone else.

Fisher said:

I oppose registration, but not because I am in the Black Helicopter Watchers Club. It is nothing more than the groundwork to impose remote vicarious liability on the last person they can prove that owned the gun when the gun is later misused by someone else.

Click to expand...

Which is why whenever a firearm is sold or lost/stolen it needs to be reported. We do that here in Massachusetts. The father of a former roommate of mine had a S&W 686 revolver stolen from their apartment in 1994. He reported it stolen to the Worcester PD. In August of 1995 he was called to reaffirm that he had reported the gun stolen in the fall of 1994, because the gun had been used in a murder. He had no liability for the gun or the crime because the gun had been reported stolen at the time of the break-in.

Somerville said:

Yep, every American with a firearm knows how to handle it when standing in a crowd



and those three weren't the only ones to enjoy their day at a gun show

Click to expand...

Ever read the Darwin Awards? People are people andsometimes, some people do extraordinarily stupid things. Being a gun owner doesnt take away a dumbasses natural tendency to be a dumbass. But lets be honest...if you took away everyones rights because A FEW are dumbasses...we probably should ban automobiles too. Hell, they are FAR more prone to be misused by morons, wouldnt you say?

But but but responsible gun owners never shoot people, only criminals do that! Everyone is entitled to own a gun for personal protection!

roughdraft274 said:

I understand, one is government based and the other is a private institution that can do whatever they want. But these people are not arguing that it's the right of the gun show to do it. They are either approving of these actions, or at the very least tacitly approving through there willingness to visit and patron said event.

Click to expand...

Which still isn't inherently hypocitical. I think it'd be a good thing for Westboro Baptist couldn't do the hateful protests they do, and would definitely support a business that disallowed them to come in their property....but I would be against the Government passing a similar law disallowing them from being on public ground. It's not inherently hypocritical to approve and even support of an action on a localized private level but be disapproving on a national governmental level.

I often here the talking point that more guns makes you safer, how ever apparently that is not true if you also think that a building full of responsible gun enthusiasts would be a dangerous place if you allowed loaded weapons.

They have even gone so far to try to get janitors and teachers and staff at SCHOOLS to start carrying loaded weapons. In order to protect the kids, lol. By their logic a gun show should be the safest place on earth, but apparently it's only the safest place on earth if you don't allow bullets in to the gun show, lol.

Click to expand...

Where have you heard these talking points? Since others in this thread seem to be keen on screaming "LINKS", perhaps you can supply them. I've seen talking point that Gun Free Zones are less safe in a general sense, that's true. But I rarely see people suggesting "More guns makes you safe", as in if you just had 50 guns around you magically your safety increases over if you had 20 guns around you.

You are packing a large amount of people and a large amount of firearms in a compact area, exponentially increasing the chance for an accident...not simply from "stupid" people but perhaps by mere coincidence or misfortune...to occur. Specifically when youp resent such a situation where there is an unknown variable in terms of the guns one is looking at in terms of if it's likely loaded or not. This is staggeringly different situation as having a handful of people with guns at a school, or allowing for people to carry into a movie hteater, unless we are to believe that in those situations suddenly the Gun to Person ratio is going to sky rocket more than it is in most other normal "public" places.

You're straining and stretching to scream HYPOCRISY and go "LOL" at people, but in reality you're just showing utter and complete disregard fo rany notion of objectivity in your rush to shake your finger at them.

You also seem to be confusing all forms of "safety" as being equvilent in type and topic. There is always a risk that a person with a gun acts negligently, foolishly, or even just has a freak accident occur. Most rational gun supporters will admit to that. That said, by and large, with your average carrier and in an average situation that risk is somewhat low. When you are putting hundreds of people and hundreds of firearms over multiple hours, you're increasing the likelihood in that narrowly confined area of an accident to occur.

Lets say, completely hypothetical here, there's a 0.01% chance per gun and per person handling a gun that an accident will occur. So a school where a "no gun zone" is lifted has lets say 10 people decide to carry...creating a situation where there's a 0.2% chance of an accident (.01 x 10 for the guns, .01 x 10 for those handling the guns). Now lets say you have a gun show with 500 attendees and 1000 guns. You're now looking at a 15% chance of an accident occuring in that location (.01 x 1000 for the guns, .01 x 500 for the people handling them). The risk posed in terms of an accident in the first case is miniscule, and the benefit gained from "reducing" the risk of accident may not offset the possible harm in "increasing" the risk regarding the ability to act in self defense. However, 15% is a significantly more impactful number and the benefit gained by action reducing it may have a sizable and useful effect that does offset the increased risk it causes in other areas.

At best, you're pointing out the hyposcrisy of those who act like one size fits all in every situation surrounding guns....by you yourself acting like one size should fit all. I get what you're doing, and actually to some degree actually agree with it, but the way you're going about it just makes me scratch my head as much as those that would make the argument you're going against (and really, I must've missed where anyone was making those arguments in this thread)

Tigger said:

Which is why whenever a firearm is sold or lost/stolen it needs to be reported. We do that here in Massachusetts. The father of a former roommate of mine had a S&W 686 revolver stolen from their apartment in 1994. He reported it stolen to the Worcester PD. In August of 1995 he was called to reaffirm that he had reported the gun stolen in the fall of 1994, because the gun had been used in a murder. He had no liability for the gun or the crime because the gun had been reported stolen at the time of the break-in.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed my point. If my gun is stolen, I shouldn't be held liable for the murder the thief did with it whether or not I reported it but the registration is an effort to make people liable for the misdeeds of others over which they had zero control.

Fisher said:

Perhaps you missed my point. If my gun is stolen, I shouldn't be held liable for the murder the thief did with it whether or not I reported it but the registration is an effort to make people liable for the misdeeds of others over which they had zero control.

Click to expand...

Fisher, I'm a gun owner, a competitive shooter, a safety officer, and a former trainer. I have to disagree with you on this one. I have no interest in registering firearms, but I do believe that they need to be reported stolen/lost if you don't want to be liable for whatever happens with it. So far as I'm concerned, from the moment you purchase that firearm until the moment you can prove it was stolen/lost or sold you are liable for EVERYTHING that happens with it.

Manc Skipper said:

But but but responsible gun owners never shoot people, only criminals do that! Everyone is entitled to own a gun for personal protection!

Click to expand...

Correct, responsible ones don't. Irresponsible ones sometimes shoot others or themselves by accident or allow kids that have not been trained on gun safety to get their hands on guns and have accidents with them. But responsible ones don't.

Are you advocating taking something away from the responsible majority because of the actions of a irresponsible or criminal minority?

Somerville said:

Ooooh, snap! I have yet to meet a libertarian, online or in reality, who can accept or understand real history, the tale of things past that helps us deal with the modern world. Every time someone notes the fallacy of their philosophy, their only rejoinder is "You apparently don't know a damn thing about libertarianism..."

Click to expand...

Well I certainly know hyperbole and propaganda. And perhaps you really do not understand libertarian philosophy. You seem more motivated by broad insults than anything else.

Tigger said:

Fisher, I'm a gun owner, a competitive shooter, a safety officer, and a former trainer. I have to disagree with you on this one. I have no interest in registering firearms, but I do believe that they need to be reported stolen/lost if you don't want to be liable for whatever happens with it. So far as I'm concerned, from the moment you purchase that firearm until the moment you can prove it was stolen/lost or sold you are liable for EVERYTHING that happens with it.

Click to expand...

As a gun owner and a lawyer, I can tell you that when you open that vicarious liability door, you are asking for a lot more trouble than you think. Suddenly, for instance, your insurance policies might start getting dropped or you start getting rated just by virtue of having the gun, in addition to you risking absolutely everything you own when I come after you in a wrongful death suit in which you had no involvement whatsoever. I wouldn't even need to prove anything--you had a gun; the gun was used in a murder--give my client everything you own. While I agree people should report their guns stolen to the police, that is something totally different than imposing liability criminal or otherwise on people.

Ive been to alot of gun shows and never saw any dealer allow anyone to load a gun they purchased or had not and ive never seen an accidental or intentional shooting...thats first. Second all the media hype and conservative sites clamoring they are taking everyones guns has brought every NON gun person who ever thought to get one out of the woodwork to buy one, whether or not they even have a clue how to handle one.

This talk of taking away the right to own guns also is sending people who don't have guns or know much about them running to gun shows. The rising values and attention also has people who have a firearm they never use - and burglars - taking guns to gun shows to sell to dealers at the show. They don't just sell guns at gun shows. They also buy guns.

I truly suspect all this talk of gun control is making more people pro-gun and more are becoming gun owners - than people giving up their firearms or becoming anti-gun.

Fisher said:

As a gun owner and a lawyer, I can tell you that when you open that vicarious liability door, you are asking for a lot more trouble than you think. Suddenly, for instance, your insurance policies might start getting dropped or you start getting rated just by virtue of having the gun, in addition to you risking absolutely everything you own when I come after you in a wrongful death suit in which you had no involvement whatsoever. I wouldn't even need to prove anything--you had a gun; the gun was used in a murder--give my client everything you own. While I agree people should report their guns stolen to the police, that is something totally different than imposing liability criminal or otherwise on people.

Click to expand...

It took me more than seven months to find a company here in Massachusetts that would write me a Renter's Policy as a gun-owner at a price I was willing to pay. The way the criminal law is written here in Massachusetts, unless you report the firearm stolen PRIOR to the incident in which it is criminally used, you are liable for damages. Once you have reported the firearm stolen and filled out the proper reports, you are no longer liable. I understand that doesn't mean you won't be found liable in court, but you are supposed to have the protection of the law at that point.

Zyphlin said:

Which still isn't inherently hypocitical. I think it'd be a good thing for Westboro Baptist couldn't do the hateful protests they do, and would definitely support a business that disallowed them to come in their property....but I would be against the Government passing a similar law disallowing them from being on public ground. It's not inherently hypocritical to approve and even support of an action on a localized private level but be disapproving on a national governmental level.

Click to expand...

You are correct, that's not hypocritical... until you include the idea that more guns makes you safer. Which, apparently you haven't heard because you've been living under a rock .
You need only listen to the NRA press conference after the last shooting where he said that more guns in good guys hands will stop the bad guys and to put armed guards at every school. It is a common theme. More guns makes you safer.

Or

More Guns = More Murders? A Myth. More Guns = Fewer Murders - Investors.com

Zyphlin said:

Where have you heard these talking points? Since others in this thread seem to be keen on screaming "LINKS", perhaps you can supply them. I've seen talking point that Gun Free Zones are less safe in a general sense, that's true. But I rarely see people suggesting "More guns makes you safe", as in if you just had 50 guns around you magically your safety increases over if you had 20 guns around you.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about 50 guns lying around. But the idea that you are safer if there are 50 good guys holding guns around you, you are safer.

Zyphlin said:

You are packing a large amount of people and a large amount of firearms in a compact area, exponentially increasing the chance for an accident...not simply from "stupid" people but perhaps by mere coincidence or misfortune...to occur. Specifically when youp resent such a situation where there is an unknown variable in terms of the guns one is looking at in terms of if it's likely loaded or not. This is staggeringly different situation as having a handful of people with guns at a school, or allowing for people to carry into a movie hteater, unless we are to believe that in those situations suddenly the Gun to Person ratio is going to sky rocket more than it is in most other normal "public" places.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but here is the point. Can we trust a responsible gun owner or not? Are there reasonable limits that should be placed on a responsible gun owner? Apparently, you, I and Tigger all agree that yes, sometimes there are. We might disagree on the occasions at certain points and what restrictions, but sometimes they are needed for general safety.

Zyphlin said:

You're straining and stretching to scream HYPOCRISY and go "LOL" at people, but in reality you're just showing utter and complete disregard fo rany notion of objectivity in your rush to shake your finger at them.

You also seem to be confusing all forms of "safety" as being equvilent in type and topic. There is always a risk that a person with a gun acts negligently, foolishly, or even just has a freak accident occur. Most rational gun supporters will admit to that. That said, by and large, with your average carrier and in an average situation that risk is somewhat low. When you are putting hundreds of people and hundreds of firearms over multiple hours, you're increasing the likelihood in that narrowly confined area of an accident to occur.

Lets say, completely hypothetical here, there's a 0.01% chance per gun and per person handling a gun that an accident will occur. So a school where a "no gun zone" is lifted has lets say 10 people decide to carry...creating a situation where there's a 0.2% chance of an accident (.01 x 10 for the guns, .01 x 10 for those handling the guns). Now lets say you have a gun show with 500 attendees and 1000 guns. You're now looking at a 15% chance of an accident occuring in that location (.01 x 1000 for the guns, .01 x 500 for the people handling them). The risk posed in terms of an accident in the first case is miniscule, and the benefit gained from "reducing" the risk of accident may not offset the possible harm in "increasing" the risk regarding the ability to act in self defense. However, 15% is a significantly more impactful number and the benefit gained by action reducing it may have a sizable and useful effect that does offset the increased risk it causes in other areas.

Click to expand...

You're example pretends that once that gun show is over, those guns and owners magically disappear. They do not. If those guns represent a .01% chance per gun then those same chances are still there, they are just spread out over a larger area. These owners are not irresponsible because they are at a gun show. They are the same person at home. Meaning that if there is a high chance with many guns in one location that we will have accidents, then there is a high chance that we will have accidents with many guns over a larger area, and we do. We have a ton of accidents with guns at houses every year. Those problems don't magically appear because it's a gun show. If you think of the guns as simply timers that go off at random intervals (accidents) to the tune of .01% chance of it happening every minute or every hour, they are just as likely for the thousand guns to go off regardless if you have 1000 guns all in one place or 1000 guns all in separate homes.

DVSentinel said:

Correct, responsible ones don't. Irresponsible ones sometimes shoot others or themselves by accident or allow kids that have not been trained on gun safety to get their hands on guns and have accidents with them. But responsible ones don't.

Are you advocating taking something away from the responsible majority because of the actions of a irresponsible or criminal minority?

Click to expand...

One of these correct responsible ones was a dealer. If even the dealers are criminally irresponsible, who can be trusted? Where's the regulation of the militia?

Manc Skipper said:

One of these correct responsible ones was a dealer. If even the dealers are criminally irresponsible, who can be trusted? Where's the regulation of the militia?

Click to expand...

Not all people of any grouping can be made to be responsible. We're human, we make mistakes and some are just naturally irresponsible. Unfortunately, there is no prove yourself responsible test for anything.

The Militia was deregulated, contrary to the Constitution in my opinion, in 1903. However, an non-regulated one still pretty much exists, if unofficially.

Somerville said:

Yep, every American with a firearm knows how to handle it when standing in a crowd



and those three weren't the only ones to enjoy their day at a gun show

Click to expand...

Oh no!! There were about a thousand auto accidents today...looks like licensing, driver's education and registration is working perfectly!

specklebang said:

Definitely time for gun safety classes. Just by watching TV you out to be able to figure out the loaded / unloaded / look before you leap truism.

Click to expand...

No, you should assume that any gun is loaded and handle it accordingly. Like my dad always said, "there's no such thing as an unloaded gun".

Manc Skipper said:

One of these correct responsible ones was a dealer. If even the dealers are criminally irresponsible, who can be trusted? Where's the regulation of the militia?

Click to expand...

The militia hasn't been called up, therefore there isn't a need for it to be regulated. If you're going to bash our laws, at least learn what they are.