Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
What is being (intentionally) ignored is that banning alcohol has proven highly ineffective for how easy it is to make and how much easier than firearms it is to distribute. I would be all for banning alcohol alongside your toys but that would just not work. Lets start with sending to prison those who buy guns legally and sell them without being given documents that say that the second purchaser is clean. I've read in this thread that people were in favour of this but for economical reasons it was not done.
On August 30 2014 19:34 Karpfen wrote: What is being (intentionally) ignored is that banning alcohol has proven highly ineffective for how easy it is to make and how much easier than firearms it is to distribute. I would be all for banning alcohol alongside your toys but that would just not work. Lets start with sending to prison those who buy guns legally and sell them without being given documents that say that the second purchaser is clean. I've read in this thread that people were in favour of this but for economical reasons it was not done.
There's two other things you have to remember. First, are privacy concerns. If you have to perform a background check on a private sale, and the person comes back disqualified, you know he's either committed a crime or been found mentally ill. This certainly violates the person's HIPAA rights in the case of mental illness, and his 4th amendment rights in the case of criminal ineligibility.
The other thing is the shear number of petty things that can make you fail your background check. You went through a particularly trying time in your life and end up depressed enough to need medication? Too bad, no guns for you, even if you are no longer depressed. You have to jump through tons of bureaucratic hoops to get it stricken from the record. Hell, even if only one doctor found you depressed, and you got several second opinions that said otherwise, you're still out of luck.
Similar things can happen with regards to crime. You were convicted of some crime, and later exonerated? Too bad the records aren't unified, the ATF hasn't been told you were exonerated. They still think you're ineligible.
Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It is used in large quantities. Highly addictive, physically damaging and makes a decent portion act negatively to their surroundings while under the influence.
I personally do not drink and don't think forbidding it would work. So I am not for a ban but can easily see why people want it banned. A subjective example is my aunt that has been divorced, whose children strongly dislike her and who (she) will likely die in a few years from alcohol addiction.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
On August 30 2014 02:22 Karpfen wrote: The data was not cited saying the guns were purchased legally. He merely said that they were originally purchased legally. Originally as in someome who can legally buy one sells it illegally to someone else.
I'm saying that they were not originally purchased legally, since straw purchasing is already a crime.
And this not just someone bought one gun, then years later sold it to an acquaintance who happened to use it in a crime. The numbers are simply too large to be individuals doing it accidentally, or not knowing the purchaser was unable to legally own a gun. The middlemen the article cites must be doing this on a regular basis. You can totally crack down on this kind of thing without affecting harmless citizens. Just like how they'll let things slide if you're caught with a little weed, but they'll track you down over pounds of the stuff.
Except we currently cant. We tried, it had 90%+ support from the American people, and failed to pass. And that kid in Texas is looking at 20-life for less than an ounce of cannabis. JS
And how do background checks stop straw purchasers anyways? That's the whole point, the straw purchaser has a clean record.
Well we are wading into the weeds here but I'll indulge. Even the article you cited says it at least 'had 90%+ support' and even at it's lowest figures show a large majority support/ed it.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how straw purchasers get away with it for so long. They legally purchase the firearm for themselves (not a straw purchase) then they resale it (for a premium) to a new found friend from the parking lot of the gun show (which doesn't require a background check).
"Look ma' no crime". How were they supposed to know the buyer wasn't legally able to own a firearm?!
"Well they should of performed a background check"
"But there is no law saying one has to perform a background check on the shady guy trying to buy a gun in the gun show parking lot"
"Well there should be"
"Let's ask the American people"
"The vast majority of Americans support more background checks"
(Tea Party) "But it's all a plot to take all of our guns after making a registry"
"Actually that's not what the bill says but we will put in a provision that specifically outlaws what you fear"
"Fuck you , fuck the people, we don't care what you want, we wont pass increased background checks or come up with an acceptable alternative ourselves."
Then back to your argument. Repeat ad nauseum
By requiring background checks on non-familial gun sales you make it so that the criminal couldn't legally (for the seller) acquire a gun like they can now.
It's actually pretty simple.
How do background checks stop the straw purchaser? He has a clean record. He legally buys the gun. He sells it without doing the background check. Background checks do nothing to curb straw purchasing. In fact, background checks are the exact kind of thing straw purchasers are used to avoid.
On August 30 2014 04:31 Thalandros wrote: I've not read most of this discussion on TL in the past but It's most likely the exact same as many other, it's the ''gun-nuts'' vs the ''anti gun radicals'' and I'm one of the latter, because it's simply better. The big reason behind guns in 'Murica is all because of that one amendment made so many years ago. It isn't relevant at all now (if it would be, the rest of the civilized world would also have something similar; we don't. The world, and eventually even US(mostly the middle because they are just so far behind right now compared to the coasts.) will realise that this is all unneeded and luckily some have already. Sure school shootings will always happen in every part of the world and we won't be able to get rid of it entirely, ever. But we will be able to dramatically decrease the amount of accidental or maniac-caused-deaths in the US because of this amendment that is way too outdated. The only question is HOW America will slowly but surely ban guns, not IF. They'll have to at some point, especially if this keeps going, but it's all dependant on how and in what timeframe because right now, the diversity in political opinion in the US is way too big to the point where you cannot make radical changes. It has to be slow but progressive, but it has to happen. Accidental deaths like the 9 year old girl with the Uzi and school shootings so often are really preventable deaths and while I would agree ''It's my right to bear arms, most people do it for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome'' that's irrelevant. There are too many retards on this planet to ignore that and that's also the reason a lot of drugs (except for weed in a lot of the world now) are so looked down upon and banned. It cannot be completely controlled and when accidents happen, they're major and shocking.
Why not ban alcohol then? Its used for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome. Yet it kills ~33% more people than guns.
Also, the coasts aren't anti-gun, urban areas are. States on the coast happen to have many urban areas, so it looks like the whole state is anti-gun, which is false. Look at New York. The only districts with constituents in favor of the SAFE Act are in New York City, and Albany. The state is much more than those two cities.
This seems unusually difficult for you to understand so I'll try one more time.
If the straw purchaser had to perform a background check on whoever he sells the gun to then he cant legally sell it to someone who doesnt pass. As it is now there is nothing illegal about buying a gun and selling it to someone who can not legally own one as long as you weren't suppose to do a background check and they didn't just tell you they can't.
So yeah straw purchasing is illegal, but not very practical to prove. If potential straw buyers had to do background checks they couldn't just play dumb and get away with it when they get caught.
On August 31 2014 08:24 nam nam wrote: I'm sure there would be a lot more people talking about banning alcohol if it wasn't extremely easy to produce yourself.
its also extremely entangled with society and culture in the western world. on almost all "special" occasions alcohol is an integral part of the whole thing. dinner at a restaurant? you probably drink wine to your meal. someones birthday? alcohol for everyone! watching a sport event together? go have a couple of beers.
banning alcohol would seriously alter almost everyones habbits in one way or another, so banning it is out of the question.
i think it is similar with guns in the usa. no one with a brain would argue that guns have any positive impact on society as a whole, but they are such a vital part of american culture that they cant be removed from it.
Guns are only designed to kill another people (or hunting, but you don't really need hunting anymore to feed). You can argue it's for defensive use, but anyway you want to have the ability to kill someone. Any citizens can sentence to death another one, and execute himself the sentence without trial.
You prefer what ? a child drink some alcohol or a child find a gun ? Even if you know drinking alcohol is bad for child, except if the child is very young, you don't need to go to the hospital. But if the child shot in his brother's head it's already too late. Or if the teenager are angry about his high school, and decide to make a shootout with daddy gun.
And also alcohol in general is used for medical purposes. Guns have no usage in this world if nobody else used them, alcohol does. If we're talking about beverages only, I can agree to some point but it'll be harder to ban than guns ever will be
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be.
On August 30 2014 02:22 Karpfen wrote: The data was not cited saying the guns were purchased legally. He merely said that they were originally purchased legally. Originally as in someome who can legally buy one sells it illegally to someone else.
I'm saying that they were not originally purchased legally, since straw purchasing is already a crime.
And this not just someone bought one gun, then years later sold it to an acquaintance who happened to use it in a crime. The numbers are simply too large to be individuals doing it accidentally, or not knowing the purchaser was unable to legally own a gun. The middlemen the article cites must be doing this on a regular basis. You can totally crack down on this kind of thing without affecting harmless citizens. Just like how they'll let things slide if you're caught with a little weed, but they'll track you down over pounds of the stuff.
Except we currently cant. We tried, it had 90%+ support from the American people, and failed to pass. And that kid in Texas is looking at 20-life for less than an ounce of cannabis. JS
And how do background checks stop straw purchasers anyways? That's the whole point, the straw purchaser has a clean record.
Well we are wading into the weeds here but I'll indulge. Even the article you cited says it at least 'had 90%+ support' and even at it's lowest figures show a large majority support/ed it.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how straw purchasers get away with it for so long. They legally purchase the firearm for themselves (not a straw purchase) then they resale it (for a premium) to a new found friend from the parking lot of the gun show (which doesn't require a background check).
"Look ma' no crime". How were they supposed to know the buyer wasn't legally able to own a firearm?!
"Well they should of performed a background check"
"But there is no law saying one has to perform a background check on the shady guy trying to buy a gun in the gun show parking lot"
"Well there should be"
"Let's ask the American people"
"The vast majority of Americans support more background checks"
(Tea Party) "But it's all a plot to take all of our guns after making a registry"
"Actually that's not what the bill says but we will put in a provision that specifically outlaws what you fear"
"Fuck you , fuck the people, we don't care what you want, we wont pass increased background checks or come up with an acceptable alternative ourselves."
Then back to your argument. Repeat ad nauseum
By requiring background checks on non-familial gun sales you make it so that the criminal couldn't legally (for the seller) acquire a gun like they can now.
It's actually pretty simple.
How do background checks stop the straw purchaser? He has a clean record. He legally buys the gun. He sells it without doing the background check. Background checks do nothing to curb straw purchasing. In fact, background checks are the exact kind of thing straw purchasers are used to avoid.
On August 30 2014 04:31 Thalandros wrote: I've not read most of this discussion on TL in the past but It's most likely the exact same as many other, it's the ''gun-nuts'' vs the ''anti gun radicals'' and I'm one of the latter, because it's simply better. The big reason behind guns in 'Murica is all because of that one amendment made so many years ago. It isn't relevant at all now (if it would be, the rest of the civilized world would also have something similar; we don't. The world, and eventually even US(mostly the middle because they are just so far behind right now compared to the coasts.) will realise that this is all unneeded and luckily some have already. Sure school shootings will always happen in every part of the world and we won't be able to get rid of it entirely, ever. But we will be able to dramatically decrease the amount of accidental or maniac-caused-deaths in the US because of this amendment that is way too outdated. The only question is HOW America will slowly but surely ban guns, not IF. They'll have to at some point, especially if this keeps going, but it's all dependant on how and in what timeframe because right now, the diversity in political opinion in the US is way too big to the point where you cannot make radical changes. It has to be slow but progressive, but it has to happen. Accidental deaths like the 9 year old girl with the Uzi and school shootings so often are really preventable deaths and while I would agree ''It's my right to bear arms, most people do it for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome'' that's irrelevant. There are too many retards on this planet to ignore that and that's also the reason a lot of drugs (except for weed in a lot of the world now) are so looked down upon and banned. It cannot be completely controlled and when accidents happen, they're major and shocking.
Why not ban alcohol then? Its used for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome. Yet it kills ~33% more people than guns.
Also, the coasts aren't anti-gun, urban areas are. States on the coast happen to have many urban areas, so it looks like the whole state is anti-gun, which is false. Look at New York. The only districts with constituents in favor of the SAFE Act are in New York City, and Albany. The state is much more than those two cities.
This seems unusually difficult for you to understand so I'll try one more time.
If the straw purchaser had to perform a background check on whoever he sells the gun to then he cant legally sell it to someone who doesnt pass. As it is now there is nothing illegal about buying a gun and selling it to someone who can not legally own one as long as you weren't suppose to do a background check and they didn't just tell you they can't.
So yeah straw purchasing is illegal, but not very practical to prove. If potential straw buyers had to do background checks they couldn't just play dumb and get away with it when they get caught.
Like I said, based on the shear percentage of guns that end up in criminal hands via straw purchasing, there are a few people making a living off it. It's not people doing it once or twice and then playing dumb. These people could easily be busted, just like how they bust people in California for selling medicinal marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California, but a private citizen can't mass produce it. The people who make a living off of it leave lots of evidence, beyond a lack of a background check.
On August 31 2014 21:25 Thalandros wrote: And also alcohol in general is used for medical purposes. Guns have no usage in this world if nobody else used them, alcohol does. If we're talking about beverages only, I can agree to some point but it'll be harder to ban than guns ever will be
Guns protect the weak from the strong. They don't just protect from other guns. How do you propose you protect yourself from a thug with a knife or two thugs, or just one thug who's much larger than you, without a gun?
An alarm system doesn't actually help you. It doesn't stop a criminal at all. It's just an annoying sound, and they aren't even that hard to disable. Unless they're trained to be a guard, a dog isn't the answer either. They're easily distracted with food, and they typically don't realize intruders mean them harm. Dogs tend to think intruders are company.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
The banning of alcohol was something the women's suffrage movement started in an attempt to reduce the number of battered women in America. When it was finally banned, people who supported the battering of women did their best to protect their hobby.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
The banning of alcohol was something the women's suffrage movement started in an attempt to reduce the number of battered women in America. When it was finally banned, people who supported the battering of women did their best to protect their hobby.
Battered women can use guns to defend themselves. It doesn't matter how tough their abusive husband is, he won't be too tough with a couple new holes in him.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
The banning of alcohol was something the women's suffrage movement started in an attempt to reduce the number of battered women in America. When it was finally banned, people who supported the battering of women did their best to protect their hobby.
Battered women can use guns to defend themselves. It doesn't matter how tough their abusive husband is, he won't be too tough with a couple new holes in him.
I don't disagree. But the alcohol prohibition law started when married women were legally unable to own any property, guns included, so they were shit out of luck.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
The banning of alcohol was something the women's suffrage movement started in an attempt to reduce the number of battered women in America. When it was finally banned, people who supported the battering of women did their best to protect their hobby.
Battered women can use guns to defend themselves. It doesn't matter how tough their abusive husband is, he won't be too tough with a couple new holes in him.
I don't disagree. But the alcohol prohibition law started when married women were legally unable to own any property, guns included, so they were shit out of luck.
Oh damn. At least we don't have that problem anymore.
On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well.
It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though.
The banning of alcohol was something the women's suffrage movement started in an attempt to reduce the number of battered women in America. When it was finally banned, people who supported the battering of women did their best to protect their hobby.
Battered women can use guns to defend themselves. It doesn't matter how tough their abusive husband is, he won't be too tough with a couple new holes in him.
I don't disagree. But the alcohol prohibition law started when married women were legally unable to own any property, guns included, so they were shit out of luck.
Oh damn. At least we don't have that problem anymore.
When it was overturned, suffragist supporters went through other means to give women protection rights instea of blaming alcohol they started blaming men directly. So we have anti-rape law supporters, violence against women law supporters, etc...
On August 30 2014 08:37 Millitron wrote: And yousomehow believe that the black market will not fill in the gap for guns?
You totally can just whip up some guns in your basement, any unscrupulous mechanic, like the guys who work for gangs to strip stolen cars, can do it. Guns, even fully-automatic guns, are not complicated to make
I don't need to believe this, given the fact that gun related crime rates in Europe are way lower than in the US(has been posted before) it actually seems to be a fact that people can successfully be prevented from owning guns and committing crimes with them.
Europe also does not have a gang problem anywhere near as bad as it is in the U.S.
Which is completely beside the point. 60% of homicides in the US are caused by the use of firearms. I couldn't find a Europe average but in Germany only 12% of homicides involved gun use. So apparently you can stop the bad guys from getting guns quite effectively. Not starting to talk about how many crimes are potentially prevented by not having access to firearms. It's pretty hard to rob a bank with a baseball bat.
On August 27 2014 22:21 Zandar wrote: Assuming a hypothetical situation that won't happen.
Let me stop you there, what is the point?
Well people like you obviously don't become world novel best sellers !
And post above me arguments are flawed because you are comparing accidents (victims from cars are mostly due to accidents) to homicides (victimes from guns are more often due to murders).
Remember the Isla Vista shooting in California earlier this year? Crazy guy who stabbed three people to death, shot three people to death and injured more?
Well in 2001, a very similar crime occured. At the same place. Also a crazy guy. Four people killed. Except the guy ran them over with a car.
What is the fucking point to argue against statistics with a specific case?
Answer: there is none, there is absolutely no logic behind doing so, one could even say that's stupid
On August 30 2014 02:22 Karpfen wrote: The data was not cited saying the guns were purchased legally. He merely said that they were originally purchased legally. Originally as in someome who can legally buy one sells it illegally to someone else.
I'm saying that they were not originally purchased legally, since straw purchasing is already a crime.
And this not just someone bought one gun, then years later sold it to an acquaintance who happened to use it in a crime. The numbers are simply too large to be individuals doing it accidentally, or not knowing the purchaser was unable to legally own a gun. The middlemen the article cites must be doing this on a regular basis. You can totally crack down on this kind of thing without affecting harmless citizens. Just like how they'll let things slide if you're caught with a little weed, but they'll track you down over pounds of the stuff.
Except we currently cant. We tried, it had 90%+ support from the American people, and failed to pass. And that kid in Texas is looking at 20-life for less than an ounce of cannabis. JS
And how do background checks stop straw purchasers anyways? That's the whole point, the straw purchaser has a clean record.
Well we are wading into the weeds here but I'll indulge. Even the article you cited says it at least 'had 90%+ support' and even at it's lowest figures show a large majority support/ed it.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how straw purchasers get away with it for so long. They legally purchase the firearm for themselves (not a straw purchase) then they resale it (for a premium) to a new found friend from the parking lot of the gun show (which doesn't require a background check).
"Look ma' no crime". How were they supposed to know the buyer wasn't legally able to own a firearm?!
"Well they should of performed a background check"
"But there is no law saying one has to perform a background check on the shady guy trying to buy a gun in the gun show parking lot"
"Well there should be"
"Let's ask the American people"
"The vast majority of Americans support more background checks"
(Tea Party) "But it's all a plot to take all of our guns after making a registry"
"Actually that's not what the bill says but we will put in a provision that specifically outlaws what you fear"
"Fuck you , fuck the people, we don't care what you want, we wont pass increased background checks or come up with an acceptable alternative ourselves."
Then back to your argument. Repeat ad nauseum
By requiring background checks on non-familial gun sales you make it so that the criminal couldn't legally (for the seller) acquire a gun like they can now.
It's actually pretty simple.
How do background checks stop the straw purchaser? He has a clean record. He legally buys the gun. He sells it without doing the background check. Background checks do nothing to curb straw purchasing. In fact, background checks are the exact kind of thing straw purchasers are used to avoid.
On August 30 2014 04:31 Thalandros wrote: I've not read most of this discussion on TL in the past but It's most likely the exact same as many other, it's the ''gun-nuts'' vs the ''anti gun radicals'' and I'm one of the latter, because it's simply better. The big reason behind guns in 'Murica is all because of that one amendment made so many years ago. It isn't relevant at all now (if it would be, the rest of the civilized world would also have something similar; we don't. The world, and eventually even US(mostly the middle because they are just so far behind right now compared to the coasts.) will realise that this is all unneeded and luckily some have already. Sure school shootings will always happen in every part of the world and we won't be able to get rid of it entirely, ever. But we will be able to dramatically decrease the amount of accidental or maniac-caused-deaths in the US because of this amendment that is way too outdated. The only question is HOW America will slowly but surely ban guns, not IF. They'll have to at some point, especially if this keeps going, but it's all dependant on how and in what timeframe because right now, the diversity in political opinion in the US is way too big to the point where you cannot make radical changes. It has to be slow but progressive, but it has to happen. Accidental deaths like the 9 year old girl with the Uzi and school shootings so often are really preventable deaths and while I would agree ''It's my right to bear arms, most people do it for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome'' that's irrelevant. There are too many retards on this planet to ignore that and that's also the reason a lot of drugs (except for weed in a lot of the world now) are so looked down upon and banned. It cannot be completely controlled and when accidents happen, they're major and shocking.
Why not ban alcohol then? Its used for fun, as a hobby, nothing bothersome. Yet it kills ~33% more people than guns.
Also, the coasts aren't anti-gun, urban areas are. States on the coast happen to have many urban areas, so it looks like the whole state is anti-gun, which is false. Look at New York. The only districts with constituents in favor of the SAFE Act are in New York City, and Albany. The state is much more than those two cities.
This seems unusually difficult for you to understand so I'll try one more time.
If the straw purchaser had to perform a background check on whoever he sells the gun to then he cant legally sell it to someone who doesnt pass. As it is now there is nothing illegal about buying a gun and selling it to someone who can not legally own one as long as you weren't suppose to do a background check and they didn't just tell you they can't.
So yeah straw purchasing is illegal, but not very practical to prove. If potential straw buyers had to do background checks they couldn't just play dumb and get away with it when they get caught.
Like I said, based on the shear percentage of guns that end up in criminal hands via straw purchasing, there are a few people making a living off it. It's not people doing it once or twice and then playing dumb. These people could easily be busted, just like how they bust people in California for selling medicinal marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California, but a private citizen can't mass produce it. The people who make a living off of it leave lots of evidence, beyond a lack of a background check.
On August 31 2014 21:25 Thalandros wrote: And also alcohol in general is used for medical purposes. Guns have no usage in this world if nobody else used them, alcohol does. If we're talking about beverages only, I can agree to some point but it'll be harder to ban than guns ever will be
Guns protect the weak from the strong. They don't just protect from other guns. How do you propose you protect yourself from a thug with a knife or two thugs, or just one thug who's much larger than you, without a gun?
An alarm system doesn't actually help you. It doesn't stop a criminal at all. It's just an annoying sound, and they aren't even that hard to disable. Unless they're trained to be a guard, a dog isn't the answer either. They're easily distracted with food, and they typically don't realize intruders mean them harm. Dogs tend to think intruders are company.
I think you are still managing to miss the point. Even after hundreds of deals one still hasn't done anything illegal and playing dumb is an acceptable excuse.
Short of a 'sting op' where they have an agent intentionally disqualify themselves and still purchase the firearm there is little that can be actioned on.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NkJykVV.png)
