[cgregor]

Trucks aren't designed to kill. Arguably, we do hold vehicle operators to somewhat higher standards of responsibility in the use of their purchases than we do gun owners.

Thank you for letting me know that I can legally sell at least fifteen guns a year in the manner I describe. What need I care about the character of the purchaser?

And I have no quarrel with "keeping and bearing arms;" it's the letting go of them that can be addressed quite within the restrictions not forbidden by the Constitution.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by cgregor

Trucks aren't designed to kill. Arguably, we do hold
vehicle operators to somewhat higher standards of responsibility in the use of
their purchases than we do gun owners.

Ok, let's keep the focus on guns then. If I sell a gun to someone, who has a clean criminal record, and he/she then uses that gun to commit a crime, I should be held responsible for it? You're asking me to look in to a crystal ball and tell the future. Since no one can possibly do that, what you're really saying, without actually saying it, is that no one should ever be allowed to sell a gun once they've bought it, lest they be held accountable for someone else's actions, which are impossible to predict. That, or you just haven't thought your position out very well.

Thank you for letting me know that I can legally sell at least fifteen guns a
year in the manner I describe.

Actually, I've been browsing the ATF's Website, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, and have been unable to verify that number specifically. Perhaps it doesn't exist and I read it somewhere else. None-the-less, anyone who "engages in the business of buying and selling firearms" ( actual language used in the law ) must obtain a FFL.

Never the less, it doesn't matter, because as I pointed out, and which you conveniently chose to ignore and not address in a meaningful way, only about 2% of criminals get their guns from legitimate, unsuspecting private sellers, give or take a % point or two. You claim this is such a huge problem, such a giant loophole, but you fail to prove that or make your case in any way other than unverified speculation and conjecture. In other words, you want to solve a problem, that you're not even sure exists.

What need I care about the character of the purchaser?

That would say more about you, than any perceived deficiencies in the law. Most gun owners have a conscious. We're human. We care about the character of the people we sell to.

it's the letting go of
them that can be addressed quite within the restrictions not forbidden by the
Constitution.

How so? The numbers show that criminals use people with clean criminal records ( friends, family, straw purchasers ) to buy their guns for them, so how will another law change that? How will it change the willingness of those straw purchasers to buy guns for criminals?

[DauntlessDan]

Trucks aren't designed to kill.

Neither necessarily are guns. I, when in high school, participated in a rifle club. We shot at paper targets all day long. No people, no animals. There are MANY target/sport shooting clubs across the country. Their firearms are NOT used to kill people, nor being single-shot, bolt action, are designed so. Military firearms, yes, but it doesn't mean that they WILL be used for that in the hands of civilians. Prohibition did not work for alcohol, nor is it working for illegal drugs, not that I am pro-legalization. BUT what makes you think that it will work for firearms? Did registration/confiscation bring down violent crime rates in the U.K.? No. Did it bring down violent crime rates in Australia? No. But yet somehow people think that it will be the magic solution here. Crime, violent and non-violent, is a problem with manifold causes and will take addressing ALL of those causes, not just one, to satisfactorily solve.

[cgregor]

Straw purchasers would be discouraged from their hobby if they knew that they would accompany the shooter to prison, the gas chamber, electric chair or gurney when their purchase is used in a crime or a homicide. Some present-day straw purchasers won't smarten up, but a lot will.

The big problem is not straw purchases, but that some 80% of ALL homicides (not suicides or accidents, just homicides) are caused with second-hand firearms (which the original purchasers sold, gave away, lost, left unsecured, pawned, etc.).

Make the gun REALLY valuable, and it will be very tightly controlled-- by its owner, not by the state.

Guns were invented to kill. Trucks were not. Vehicles are sometimes used to run over possums, turtles, etc., intentionally, just as guns are used sometimes to shoot paper targets. Neither circumstance changes the original purpose of the artifact.

[arctichomesteader]

Straw purchasers are already committing a felony with hefty prison time. They don't care. Making another law against it won't change anything.

[arctichomesteader]

Oddly enough another gun bill is being pushed by animal rights activists to ban lead ammo. Animal advocates gather to support several bills *:*Rutland Herald Online

At the same time, the ATF wants to ban the lead-free ammo not made of lead as "armor piercing." https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...mon-ar-15-ammo

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by cgregor

Straw purchasers would be discouraged from their hobby
if they knew that they would accompany the shooter to prison, the gas chamber,
electric chair or gurney when their purchase is used in a crime or a homicide.
Some present-day straw purchasers won't smarten up, but a lot will.

Straw purchasers are already committing a federal crime. You seem to be under the impression that selling a "second-hand gun" to a criminal is perfectly legal under current law, and it's not.

The big problem is not straw purchases, but that some 80% of ALL homicides (not
suicides or accidents, just homicides) are caused with second-hand firearms
(which the original purchasers sold, gave away, lost, left unsecured, pawned,
etc.)

Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Or can you back that assertion up with proof? We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

If you refer to the numbers I provided you on the previous page, it appears that straw-purchasers are in fact the problem, and the legitimate second hand market which this law is aimed at, only accounts for about 2% of criminal sources. Perhaps you have some revised numbers that I've not seen? If you do, please post them here so that we can all have a look. You can't just throw statistics and numbers out there without backing them up.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Oddly enough another gun bill is being pushed by animal rights activists to ban lead ammo. Animal advocates gather to support several bills *:*Rutland Herald Online

At the same time, the ATF wants to ban the lead-free ammo not made of lead as "armor piercing." https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...mon-ar-15-ammo

Read between the lines my friends...... It's pretty obvious what the real goal here is.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Looks like the issue is all but dead....

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessag...kground-checks

Congratulations Vermont! You successfully stood up for and defended your freedom.

[cgregor]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Or can you back that assertion up with proof? We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

My apologies, whipperSnapper; I didn't have the right data.

It's not 80%.

Based on 68.75% of all homicides being gun deaths (from 1990-97 homicide data, https://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm), and the average intentional homicide rate per year for the decade 2000-2010 in the US as 15,547 (List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), 10,688 persons per year were murdered by firearms use.

A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey (Gun Control - Just Facts) of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail revealed where they got the weapon:
0.7% at a gun show
3.8% at a pawn shop
8.3% new purchase
39.2% from an illegal source
39.6% from family or friends.

In other words, in the matter of gun homicides, the original purchaser of the weapon was on average responsible for only 887 deaths, while original purchasers who lent, sold, gifted, pawned or “lost” their weapon because it was unsecured were responsible for about 9,000 deaths or roughly 89% of all gun homicides on average.

The Constitution might protect our right to own firearms, but it doesn't protect any right to treat them like just another appliance. Original purchasers should be held to the standards of a priesthood and the weapon considered their sacrament. If they defile their office, they should suffer for it.

Your thoughts on responsible gun ownership, please.