The press continues to parrot the talking points of anti-gun advocates, especially the use of the phrase "gun show loophole." Some media outlets have gone even further, and reported that firearms dealers at gun shows are selling guns without doing the proper background checks, which is simply false.
Here is what is really going on: At gun shows, those who buy and sell firearms as part of the show's vendors are all licensed firearms dealers, many of whom also operate related businesses. All of these dealers conduct background checks in cooperation with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System at the gun shows. If the check comes back clean, then the sale is allowed. If not, then no sale.
Folks who are claiming the need to plug a loophole are actually talking about private citizens who come to these shows who also buy and sell firearms from each other (in the parking lot or in line) and that these private transactions should require background checks. This attempt to have the government monitor private sales between individual citizens is a circuitous way of creating a national firearm registry, something that directly threatens the liberty and foundations of freedom upon which our nation was built.
The reason these registry ideas are a threat is because history has shown that governments use such lists to disarm the citizens in time of crisis. Here in the United States, this would eliminate the possibility of forming those, "well armed militias" that the founders wrote about being essential to preserving our freedom.
Detractors of gun rights always claim that government control is needed to protect us from each other. They cite the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and other acts of misuse of firearms. Supporters of strict gun control negligently ignore the thousand-fold cases where the presence of an armed citizen has prevented crime from even being committed in the first place. Imagine, Virginia Tech students had not been under a recklessly mandated, no guns on campus policy when Seung-Hui Cho started shooting. A student or faculty member who had access to a weapon could have stopped Cho's murderous tirade, or perhaps prevented the incident altogether.
The press conveniently played down a similar incident that happened at the Appalachian School of Law, a few years before Cho's rampage. At Appalachian, a crazed student who was bent on killing his professors was quickly subdued by other students who were able to grab weapons from their nearby cars. It is interesting how even the craziest perpetrator can become suddenly rational when looking down the barrel of a shotgun.
VCU's gun ban invites an incident like the ones at Appalachian Law School and Virginia Tech. With access to firearms, unhindered by government intrusion, citizens can promote a more secure environment for everyone. Everyone needn't be armed, not even most citizens. Just the possibility of being met by an armed response by citizens well trained and prepared to use a firearm is the best deterrent to violent crimes. In most cases, all the potential thug needs to deter him from the intended criminal act is to discover that someone among the targeted victims is armed and prepared to resist.
