People will know. The problem is always who votes. It's important for progressives to get off their asses and vote in midterms.

Speaking of misinformation. How many crimes are actually committed with guns obtained through this so-called loophole?

Answer:Practically none. Why? Because 98% of all guns purchased at shows in this state are from licensed dealers, who are already required by law to perform background checks on purchasers. Furthermore, you have to be a member of the gun show to purchase a gun, which requires government ID, so there are effectively no anonymous purchases of any firearms at gun shows in this state.

This 'gun show loophole' is another emotional non-problem in search of a solution, ultimately amounting to a colossal waste of time and effort.

In other words, more feel-good bullshit from my friends on the left.

For those fearful of guns, take a look at how many people in the survey are used to having them in their homes.

http://www.seattlemet.com/data/files/201…

FIREARMS IN HOME
YES ..................................................... 35%
NO....................................................... 49%
No Answer .......................................... 15%

@2

So let me get this right. You're point is that the vast majority of gun sales at these shows already use background checks and that this law would be redundant if passed. So, on one hand, you really don't have anything to be scared of because, well, its not limiting your rights any more than they already are.

But, on the other, 4% of gun sales at "shows" (which are loosely defined, btw) are not using background checks. Yet you have no problem with this very real and non "non-existent" anonymous purchases which effectively undermine the very reason why your gun shows have background checks.

So, I'm not really seeing your complaint. The law essentially further validates the gun shows that you're going to while invalidating those that are, to be honest, sketchy and currently untraceable.

In other words, more nonsense bullshit from my friends on the right.

@3

Seeing as the rate of gun ownership is about 34%, that figure seems fairly on target.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rat…

@2 I can't speak to the gun shows in Washington, as I don't live there, but the "so-called gun show loophole" does exist in other states, and it is a real problem.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a source for your stat regarding gun purchases? Is there a law requiring membership in the gun shows, or is it just the way they currently operate?

Gun shows in WV are like the wild west (I know everyone is surprised to hear that!) Many sellers are not licensed dealers, do not conduct background checks, and sometimes do not even bother checking IDs. Many dealers actually shy away from gun shows these days because a lot of the gun buyers refuse to pay tax or have a background check run, and so the dealers don't do well selling when there are non-dealers at the next table. Felons in WV have little trouble obtaining firearms, and the gun shows are a reliable source, if not from a cousin or a neighbor. Or the same dude who also supplies your meth...

Aaah, the pros and cons of urban vs kuntry...

@2, surely you saw the gents buying guns in the street, no ID, no questions asked, during the buyback programs? That's what I'm talking about.

And you're wrong about crime guns. EVERY crime gun begins as a legal transaction. Millions of guns are stolen every year, usually in a house burglary. Gun owners are the stupidest and most irresponsible turds in the toilet bowl of America, and they're easy pickin's for bad guys. Not to mention the other primary source of crime guns -- unregulated but legal buyers at gun shops. Without the profits from the sale of guns to criminals, most gun shops couldn't survive. Your hobby DEPENDS ON crime.

who cares? Initiative 594 won't stand up to state constitutional scrutiny because despite all the pro life sensible regulation talk, they just want a ban. They couldn't help themselves with overreaching add-ons for the bill that will get it struck down.

The schadenfreude when both pass and 594 gets struck down in court will be blinding.

@4

The way I see it, creating laws for a non-problem is just as stupid as Oklahoma preemptively banning Sharia Law.

@6

Just ask the Washington Arms Collectors, the largest gun show organizer in the state. That's where I got my stats. And as far as I know, it's not a state law to require membership for a firearms purchase. It's just that everyone who puts on shows requires it because, contrary to the SLOG narrative, they don't want to arm criminals anymore than you do. It's bad for business.

@7

The ridiculous gun buyback program that The Stranger promoted created in open air gun market under I-5 where one previously never existed. Way to go.

I think you're being disingenuous with this 'gun show loophole' bullshit. It's no different than a standard transaction between private parties. So what you really should be saying is that you want to ban firearm transactions between private parties.

So require background checks on all firearm purchases you say? Like most feel-good solutions, it looks good on paper but is unenforceable and will have no practical effect.

Why? Because:

1) Criminals will not submit to a background check.

2) In a world of 'universal background checks' there is no way of knowing if a gun was transferred legally without a national gun registry, except for new guns purchased after the law takes effect, and that's the ball game.

We all know that the liberal utopia is a total gun ban and practical confiscation is not possible without a national gun registry. In any case, none of this will compel a single criminal to obey the law.

@9

I would think 4% of an unknown number of sales would lead to a TON of unchecked gun ownership. But, you know, that's just me and "math".

"Just ask the Washington Arms Collectors, the largest gun show organizer in the state. That's where I got my stats."

That's one strong source, thar.

"The Stranger promoted created in open air gun market under I-5 where one previously never existed. Way to go."

*wooosh*
That's the point going over your head.

And not to mention that literally disproves any 96% bullshit data you have because I can, at any moment, go to the corner of my street, start a "gun show", and sell my gun to whoever.

I can do that. Right. Now. Legally.

But that's okay because freedumb!

"It's no different than a standard transaction between private parties. So what you really should be saying is that you want to ban firearm transactions between private parties."

That's one nice lookin' strawman, thar.

"it looks good on paper but is unenforceable and will have no practical effect."

Except an officer would be able to actually stop me from selling my gun on the corner without having to worry about the "gern sherr" defense.

"Criminals will not submit to a background check."

Sooo, they'd have one less outlet to buy a weapon without a background check.

"there is no way of knowing if a gun was transferred legally without a national gun registry"

Good point, we need a registry too.

"We all know that the liberal utopia is a total gun ban and practical confiscation"

Oh look, another strawman. Unfortunately, not your best work. It kinda screams, "I have no real arguments". But that's just my opinion.

@10

Why don't we simplify things a bit, shall we?

I'll return to my original point. How many crimes are committed in this state with guns purchased at gun shows without a background check?

Show me why this law is any more necessary than Oklahoma banning Sharia Law.

I'll check back this afternoon. Right now I'm going to my local gun range. It's a beautiful day and I'm going to punch little holes in paper bullseye targets far away, because for me it's more relaxing than golf.

@9 I am not being disingenuous with the gun show loophole "bullshit." Perhaps others contained within the collective "you" are. I would not be against requiring background checks between private parties, but I am not one with a hidden agenda to ban all guns. C'mon, I live in WV - firearms are very commonplace here and more a part of the culture than in most places, and in a different way than, say, urban gangs.

I submit there is quite a difference between the anonymous sales at a gun show (in states where ID is not required) and private sales. A lot of private sales occur between people who know each other, and know them well enough to know they would pass a background check. Private sellers often decline to sell to someone who they aren't quite sure about, valuing the idea of the gun needing to stay in the hands of an upstanding citizen more than the profit from selling. People who regularly sell at gun shows, obviously, are motivated more by profit than the lady who just has a gun she doesn't want anymore.

Universal background checks does not mean there has to be a national gun registry. In fact, with the check system that is currently in place, the only thing that would need to change would be handling the increased volume of checks. I don't believe instituting a national registry is logistically possible, at least not without drastically changing the whole beast that is the background check system.

Closing the gun show loophole would not prevent all sales to criminals, clearly, but it would definitely eliminate a very easy way for criminals to obtain firearms. Then their only option that did not involve actively committing a crime would be to get one from an individual, and if they are sketchy enough, they're going to have a tough time. Responsible gun owners don't like to see firearms in the hands of sketchy people anymore than those who hate and fear guns. And trying to rob someone who has guns is not typically a wise action... go ahead, try and steal a gun from the dude up the hollar... triple dog dare ya!

I feel like I may have read this somewhere else days ago. Where was that again? If only The Stranger had someone dedicated to reporting news like this...