ON guns. Intresting link/survey included

[AnomalousEntity]

we've been down this subject a few times and the thing i think is most pertinent is that there is little or no correlation between gun law, extent of ownership and the levels of violent gun related crime.

there are plenty of societies with relaxed gun ownership which appear to have a problem with gun crime [take mexico, for example, or some might even say the us]. equally there are those countries with relaxed laws and a much lower crime rate involving guns [switzerland].
we have countries with tight laws and little crime and countries with tight laws and an increasing gun problem [some might point at the uk, which has seen an increase in recent years].

the truth of it is that gun crime is predominantly a cultural issue. canada and the us sit side by side and both have good accessibility to firearms. canada's homicide rate is considerably lower than the us' though.

i see no reason to own a firearm unless i was going to be regularly hunting or shooting, and even then a long or large bore gun would be the inevitable and realistically only option. but then i am in the uk, which for all its increases in gun related crime is still a place for which most ordinary citizens need not carry a small sidearm and are legally prevented from doing so.
i am fairly certain that cultural reasons are the most likely for the increases in gun related crime in the uk over the last 5 years and see no reason to bow to the paranoia that the media and other sources promote daily to persuade me i am living in a lawless country and that i need a firearm.

in this country, at this time, i don't.

That is an good over all summary. I agree with most of your assertions except for the idea that taking steps to protect one self falls under the realm of "paranoia".

"Paranoia" indicates some type of mental disorder.

Do people who wear their seat belts suffer from the mental disorder of "paranoia"? The ones who buy home owners insurance? The ones who never leave the house without telling their loved ones they love them?

Does practicing safe exit routes in case of fire constitute "paranoia".

Im sorry but the desire to carry a weapon for self defense is no different than the above.

Its not "paranoia" its accepting the reality of the world in which we live in...period.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Listen: I live in America. I do not own a gun. I do not want to own a gun. I do not need to protect myself with a gun. And so on.

The biggest crime that has been commited against me happened a few months back. Actually, it did not happen to me, but my car which I own, 100%. Someone smashed in my front passenger window, but they did not steal anything from my car. The same thing happened to my neighbor. So it goes. A gun would not have protected me or my car. This was a random act of drunkedness (sp?).

rrfield

P.S. Gun's don't kill people, Don kills people.

Past experience with violent crime bears no influence of the potential victimization of such. It is not an indicator. It is not a reason to be lulled into thinking "it will never happen to me".

Several hundred people will die in a car wreck today that thought "it wont happen to me".

Does thinking it some how protect you from it? Not at all. In fact, it makes you very very vulnerable to such an event.

NO one has asserted that carrying a weapon for self defense will protect you %100 from all crime. Does wearing a seat belt guarantee you wont be killed in a car wreck? No. But not wearing one would be nothing short of stupid.

There are some crimes that are not situationally dependant upon your ability to react in defense...and there are some that are extremely dependant upon your reaction.

Either scenario could result in death (or you could fall down the steps leaving your house and die).

Why not take precautions in the event that the crime that is committed upon you, is of the "response dependant" type in which you would have an opportunity to defend yourself?

Not doing it is the same as not installing those hand rails on your steps and not wearing your seat belt...hell why watch what you eat? Load up on cheese burgers and french fries and drive 80 miles per hour, and dont tie your shoe laces...

I mean if your thinking is that precautions are not worth taking....why not just live recklessly as hell in everything you do?

Why not?

Because you know precautions ARE WORHT TAKING. Its just that you are afraid of guns and so arguments such as this are essentially fabricated to explain away the need.

 

[rrfield]

NO one has asserted that carrying a weapon for self defense will protect you %100 from all crime. Does wearing a seat belt guarantee you wont be killed in a car wreck? No. But not wearing one would be nothing short of stupid.

So following this logic, not carrying a gun with me is nothing short of stupid? Well, then call me stupid

I mean if your thinking is that precautions are not worth taking....why not just live recklessly as hell in everything you do?

Why not?

Because you know precautions ARE WORHT TAKING. Its just that you are afraid of guns and so arguments such as this are essentially fabricated to explain away the need.

I do not live my day-to-day life in fear. I do not lock my doors at night. I do not lock my car doors. I do not own a large dog to protect my house. Steal from me, please! Want my address? I have some neat stuff, like a Cisco router, an Atari 2600, a rugby ball, 2 turn tables and a microphone.

I also own lots of tools. Screw drivers, wrenches, drills, saws. These tools each have a specific purpose. A gun is also a tool with a specific purpose: to put holes in living things. I don't really want to put a hole in another living thing, especially a human. I'd rather whack them with a baseball bat or tire iron.

If I were to take precautions against everything that would kill me, I would not have time to engage in activities that I enjoy, such as watching NFL football, playing disc golf, or heckeling Charelton Heston. Protecting ones self would be a full time job.

I am not afraid of guns. I have fired guns before, I know general gun safety, I have cleaned a gun. Some people say they get this surge of power when they hold a gun (as Homer would say "like God must feel when he holds a gun"). I don't get that rush, it feels like I'm holding a chunk of metal designed to hurl smaller pieces of metal at living things, and to hurl it so fast that it puts a hole in the living thing. I work for the electric company, I have access to all the power I want. Seriosuly though, I'm not afraid of much, really. I just don't see the need in my life for a gun. Will "it" happen to me? Perhaps. So it was meant to be, I guess.

When I hold you in my arms
And I feel my finger on your trigger
I know no one can do me no harm
Because happiness is a warm gun.

Bang Bang, shoot shoot.

rrfield

 

[ris]

That is an good over all summary. I agree with most of your assertions except for the idea that taking steps to protect one self falls under the realm of "paranoia".

"Paranoia" indicates some type of mental disorder.

Do people who wear their seat belts suffer from the mental disorder of "paranoia"? The ones who buy home owners insurance? The ones who never leave the house without telling their loved ones they love them?

Does practicing safe exit routes in case of fire constitute "paranoia".

Im sorry but the desire to carry a weapon for self defense is no different than the above.

Its not "paranoia" its accepting the reality of the world in which we live in...period.

the reason why i consider it to be a form of paranoia is that in the uk, today, violent, gun related crime is still incredibly small. it might have risen 25% but that is still 25% of very little. gun crime here is still largely gang related and inner city.
i choose an action according to the risk - driving a car kills several thousand people every year in the uk and i drive every day so i wear a seatbelt [and because the law states i must]. practicing fire exit routes is again related to risk and law.

when random gun-related killings in the uk are still probably under 100 deaths per year and that i am extremely unlikely to find myself at risk means that the culture and society i am part of means i can sensibly and reasonably argue that i have no need to own a firearm [and consequently break the law].

i see no reason to escalate my personal protection disproportionately to the risk posed given the culture i live in. i do not drive to work in an armoured car to prevent injury in an accident, or ensure i have a personal fire suit to wear at work, both would be disproportionate to the risk.

the reality of the society and culture of the uk is that owning firearms for personal protection from harm from other firearms is unnecessary for a vast proportion of citizens.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

the reason why i consider it to be a form of paranoia is that in the uk, today, violent, gun related crime is still incredibly small. it might have risen 25% but that is still 25% of very little. gun crime here is still largely gang related and inner city.
i choose an action according to the risk - driving a car kills several thousand people every year in the uk and i drive every day so i wear a seatbelt [and because the law states i must]. practicing fire exit routes is again related to risk and law.

when random gun-related killings in the uk are still probably under 100 deaths per year and that i am extremely unlikely to find myself at risk means that the culture and society i am part of means i can sensibly and reasonably argue that i have no need to own a firearm [and consequently break the law].

i see no reason to escalate my personal protection disproportionately to the risk posed given the culture i live in. i do not drive to work in an armoured car to prevent injury in an accident, or ensure i have a personal fire suit to wear at work, both would be disproportionate to the risk.

the reality of the society and culture of the uk is that owning firearms for personal protection from harm from other firearms is unnecessary for a vast proportion of citizens.

Ris those are some of the best, and most well thought out points Ive seen.

One question though. Dont you think that should be a personal decisions up to the rights of intelligent, self-aware, human beings, rather than somthing that gets legislated in government by a bunch of yes men who probably have given the issue a hell of a lot less consideration than you have?

Shouldnt it be a personal choice?

 

[AnomalousEntity]

So following this logic, not carrying a gun with me is nothing short of stupid? Well, then call me stupid



I do not live my day-to-day life in fear. I do not lock my doors at night. I do not lock my car doors. I do not own a large dog to protect my house. Steal from me, please! Want my address? I have some neat stuff, like a Cisco router, an Atari 2600, a rugby ball, 2 turn tables and a microphone.

I also own lots of tools. Screw drivers, wrenches, drills, saws. These tools each have a specific purpose. A gun is also a tool with a specific purpose: to put holes in living things. I don't really want to put a hole in another living thing, especially a human. I'd rather whack them with a baseball bat or tire iron.

If I were to take precautions against everything that would kill me, I would not have time to engage in activities that I enjoy, such as watching NFL football, playing disc golf, or heckeling Charelton Heston. Protecting ones self would be a full time job.

I am not afraid of guns. I have fired guns before, I know general gun safety, I have cleaned a gun. Some people say they get this surge of power when they hold a gun (as Homer would say "like God must feel when he holds a gun"). I don't get that rush, it feels like I'm holding a chunk of metal designed to hurl smaller pieces of metal at living things, and to hurl it so fast that it puts a hole in the living thing. I work for the electric company, I have access to all the power I want. Seriosuly though, I'm not afraid of much, really. I just don't see the need in my life for a gun. Will "it" happen to me? Perhaps. So it was meant to be, I guess.



Bang Bang, shoot shoot.

rrfield

LOL

Some people can choose not to own a weapon, I have very close friends who share your feelings.

But again, it should be a personal choice left up to each individual.

Some think "what ever happens happens" and sort of live on "faith".

Others believe they have a larger amount of control in their own destiny and choose to follow the old boy scout motto of " Be prepared"

Maybe no one wants your stuff. Maybe someone would kill you for a single cd...who knows? Why tempt fate by making yourself more vulnerable? Thats just asking for trouble.

Yes I carry a full first aid kit in my car, including a cpr mask with a one way valve. I have a fire extinguisher, a cell phone, and I always lock my car and house doors. I always arm the security system on both as well.

And you know what? It doesnt affect my life in the slightest. I have a great time. The precations took up such a miniscule amount of my time it wasnt even funny. I dont live in fear. I sleep damm good at night knowing I took proper precautions.

Tell you what, dont take my word for it! Ask Sexy boo. I spend a ton of time with her and she will tell you how much fun I have and am.

Need more time to enjoy those great activities? (several of which I enjoy also!)..... dont post on the internet. I gaurantee you it takes up a hell of alot more time than some basic common sense precautions do!

 

[Aunty Em]

Ris those are some of the best, and most well thought out points Ive seen.

One question though. Dont you think that should be a personal decisions up to the rights of intelligent, self-aware, human beings, rather than somthing that gets legislated in government by a bunch of yes men who probably have given the issue a hell of a lot less consideration than you have?

Shouldnt it be a personal choice?

Sadly there is a section of society who have neither intelligence or commonsence and are dangerous around knives and forks never mind guns.

The legislation is intended to protect us from these idiots as much as the criminals.

 

[AlphaTroll]

I've had a gun held to my head. I want a gun.

So have I - on more than one occasion - but I don't want a gun, don't think it would do me any good at all. Protecting me is the police's job & if our fucked up government only realised that & started spending more money on financing the police department it would probably go a long way to negate the need for guns as a measure of self protection in the home.

 

[ris]

Ris those are some of the best, and most well thought out points Ive seen.

One question though. Dont you think that should be a personal decisions up to the rights of intelligent, self-aware, human beings, rather than somthing that gets legislated in government by a bunch of yes men who probably have given the issue a hell of a lot less consideration than you have?

Shouldnt it be a personal choice?

i think the decision as to whether personal firearms should be allowed is again cultural. in the states it is a mandated right [i'm not playing round and round the constitution arguing semantics, the decision to make it apply to small arms has been made and so stands], in other countries it is not covered by law or even be made a prescription of law.

in the uk we have some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. we also have an extremely low rate of crimes involving firearms. at the moment the balance seems to work and unless the situation arose where large numbers of people felt pressured enough to want to carry weapons daily in clear breach of the law then i see no reason to change it.

our government is like all of them in that it is a reactionary bunch, and the last time it was reactionary to firearms was following the dunblane school massacre nearly 10 years ago. public outcry was not for teachers to carry firearms, or armed patrols at schools but for handguns to be made harder to purchase. its made sporting shooting harder to do [sadly a sport we are pretty good at] but it also shows a cultural attitude to firearms that marries well with the law.

 

[Gato_Solo]

ris hit this one right on the head. One of the reasons the US actually promotes gun ownership is because of King George III. At the time, taxation, religious intolerance (for non-Anglicans), and restrictions on liberties for the colonies was the main reason for the split in culture. In fact, one of the only things that wassn't restricted was the firearm. At the time, it was nessecary for the safety and well-being of any family living on the 'frontier'. Subsistence hunting was a way of life, and, thanks to the French and Indian war, most native Americans were looked upon as dangerous, a firearm was your only means of defense. Once the revolution and the Articles of Confederation were over, the constitution made certain things rights. Our culture grew out of those first 10 amendments, and here we stand today.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Sadly there is a section of society who have neither intelligence or commonsence and are dangerous around knives and forks never mind guns.

The legislation is intended to protect us from these idiots as much as the criminals.

But you cant just pick and choose WHAT DANGEROUS items people like this can have and cant have.

If they are as you described, you cant say they only cant have guns! That doesnt protect you from "these idiots".

"These idiots" would still be a danger, with a car, a knife, an axe, hell,a rock! So taking away the "gun" does absolutely nothing for you!

What could protect you from "these idiots"...the right to carry a weapon yourself!

 

[AnomalousEntity]

So have I - on more than one occasion - but I don't want a gun, don't think it would do me any good at all. Protecting me is the police's job & if our fucked up government only realised that & started spending more money on financing the police department it would probably go a long way to negate the need for guns as a measure of self protection in the home.

Alpha,

Perhaps where you are that would work, but in the states, the police have no liability for protecting the individual citizens and the courts have already ruled on this.

If you call for help, there is a 90% chance the police will not get there until you are already dead.


I repeat...the only thing they might (and I emphasize MIGHT) be good for is catching the guys who killed you....a lot of good that does you though!

And I dont see how you can say "protecting me is the police's job" with a straight face.

It should be obvious that protecting you is YOUR JOB.

According to that logic, you could walk naked down the worst part of town and then (after brutally attacked) sue the local law enforcement agency on the grounds of:

"they are supposed to protecte me and didn't"

I dont know what the title would be- "failure to perform required duties" or "civil neglect" or somthing along the lines.

Obviously the "they will protect me" logic has some serious flaws.

 

[AlphaTroll]

Alpha,

Perhaps where you are that would work, but in the states, the police have no liability for protecting the individual citizens and the courts have already ruled on this.

If you call for help, there is a 90% chance the police will not get there until you are already dead.


I repeat...the only thing they might (and I emphasize MIGHT) be good for is catching the guys who killed you....a lot of good that does you though!

And I dont see how you can say "protecting me is the police's job" with a straight face.

It should be obvious that protecting you is YOUR JOB.

According to that logic, you could walk naked down the worst part of town and then (after brutally attacked) sue the local law enforcement agency on the grounds of:

"they are supposed to protecte me and didn't"

I dont know what the title would be- "failure to perform required duties" or "civil neglect" or somthing along the lines.

Obviously the "they will protect me" logic has some serious flaws.

It wasn't said with a straight face really. I'm not so daft as to think that the police could possibly be everywhere at every minute of the day. And there is a little thing called common sense that people should employ - i.e knowing where you are going, who you will be going with, when you'll be back etc - I'm definitely not gonna walk around a bad part of town naked (ludicrous example that).

But I was serious about the government needing to spend more money on the police force - in SA the current ratio of police officers to members of the public is about 1:70 (one policeman per 70 people). Of them only about 60% (I'm not sure if it is 60% - could be higher) do active duty - the rest make up presidential guard, courtroom officers and those who do the 'desk jobs'. With proper funding they could increase the manpower dramatically - thereby putting more police out on the streets & enable them to be more pro-active, rather than a reactive force.

SA also has one of the highest violent crimes statistics in the world in terms of murder, rape & robberies (including highjackings). Most of these are perpetrated with handguns - the handguns are either smuggled into the country through the African borders or via the harbors or they are stolen from legitimate (licenced) firearm holders. So in a way the guns the people are buying to protect themselves end up being used in criminal acts.

And all the points you make are valid, however I still wouldn't want a gun as home protection. There are other ways - security systems, panic buttons, etc. And unless you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow (daft thing to do IMO for various reasons) you'd likely not stand much of a chance anyway if you still need to take time to load a gun while in a sleepy state.

I guess I've just had too many bad experiences with firearms to buy into the idea that gun ownership is the right way to go.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

It wasn't said with a straight face really. I'm not so daft as to think that the police could possibly be everywhere at every minute of the day. And there is a little thing called common sense that people should employ - i.e knowing where you are going, who you will be going with, when you'll be back etc - I'm definitely not gonna walk around a bad part of town naked (ludicrous example that).

But I was serious about the government needing to spend more money on the police force - in SA the current ratio of police officers to members of the public is about 1:70 (one policeman per 70 people). Of them only about 60% (I'm not sure if it is 60% - could be higher) do active duty - the rest make up presidential guard, courtroom officers and those who do the 'desk jobs'. With proper funding they could increase the manpower dramatically - thereby putting more police out on the streets & enable them to be more pro-active, rather than a reactive force.

SA also has one of the highest violent crimes statistics in the world in terms of murder, rape & robberies (including highjackings). Most of these are perpetrated with handguns - the handguns are either smuggled into the country through the African borders or via the harbors or they are stolen from legitimate (licenced) firearm holders. So in a way the guns the people are buying to protect themselves end up being used in criminal acts.

And all the points you make are valid, however I still wouldn't want a gun as home protection. There are other ways - security systems, panic buttons, etc. And unless you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow (daft thing to do IMO for various reasons) you'd likely not stand much of a chance anyway if you still need to take time to load a gun while in a sleepy state.

I guess I've just had too many bad experiences with firearms to buy into the idea that gun ownership is the right way to go.

Two points

They make these things called gun safes that can be bolted directly to the base board of the bed. You can store a gun in it loaded. In order to open the safe, you have to press a series of buttons.

On the one I have there are 4 buttons and you can program it to require any combination of these buttons and from 3 key entries up to 6 key entries. I have mine programmed to require 6 key entries but I can open it in about 3 seconds. After the entry, the spring loaded door opens automatically and there is a light inside of it so that you can easily see the contents.

Paranoid? Not at all. It cost me 70 bucks and about 10 minutes to install. I think that pretty much address your issue of quick access to a gun. I also keep one in my glove compartment of the car and can carry one on me physically.

Second point.

I agree that its up to you as an individual to decide that it isnt for you! I also utilize a security system and have a key fab on my key chain that includes a panic button that is wired into the house security system. I can essentially call the police from anywhere within 50 yards of my house with a simple press of the button. Paranoid? Not at all. ADT put it in free and I got a huge discount on my home owners insurance to have it! The point is that an individual should have the choice!

Lastly, if I lived in your area, Id want the same setup and rights that I have where I live...it doesnt sound to safe to me!

I can see where you would want more protection from Leos, but sometimes they can be as bad (0r worse) than the criminals.

It does sound like they need to seriously get control of the illegal firearms, theft, and black market...but they should do it without restricting ownership to the law abiding citizens!

 

[AlphaTroll]

Two points

Lastly, if I lived in your area, Id want the same setup and rights that I have where I live...it doesnt sound to safe to me!

I can see where you would want more protection from Leos, but sometimes they can be as bad (0r worse) than the criminals.

It does sound like they need to seriously get control of the illegal firearms, theft, and black market...but they should do it without restricting ownership to the law abiding citizens!

The area I live in is actually a very good, suburban area with a very low crime rate. I was speaking of crime statistics as a whole in SA. (Forgot to mention that the latest reports indicate a year to year decrease in violent crimes).

We have a very democratic system here, so I don't know what rights you have that I might not have?

I still think certain restrictions should be placed on private gun ownership. One handgun per household type thing (if you really want to have a gun in your house) & no large caliber weapons. Why on earth would you need more than that?

 

[AnomalousEntity]

The area I live in is actually a very good, suburban area with a very low crime rate. I was speaking of crime statistics as a whole in SA. (Forgot to mention that the latest reports indicate a year to year decrease in violent crimes).

We have a very democratic system here, so I don't know what rights you have that I might not have?

I still think certain restrictions should be placed on private gun ownership. One handgun per household type thing (if you really want to have a gun in your house) & no large caliber weapons. Why on earth would you need more than that?

If by "large caliber" you mean military style rifles which can accept high capacity magazines, then I agree with you there 100%!

If by large calaber, you mean a small .45 ACP glock, I disagree with you.

More than one?

Well I dont support that. You need different weapons for different things.

I dont like to constantly be "displaying my weapons" by carring them in and out. My "Car gun" stays in the glove compartment, and my "house gun" stays in the safe.

Then I have a "carry gun" that stays on me. This arrangment prevents me from having to constantly carry them in and out of the house and every which way.

Why have a a "car gun" and a "carry gun"? Because when going to work I dont wear one but I still want one in the car...again, Idont want to have to be carrying them around from place to place every time I go anywhere.

Lastly I have a .12 gauge pump action shot gun in the top of the closet. I enjoy skeet shooting and a .12 gauge really is the best for home defense. Unfortunately I cant find the under the bed "drawer style safe" that I have been looking for to provide me quick access to it.

 

[AlphaTroll]

Apparently this is the South African Firearm Control Act (or rather a brief explanation)

NEW FEATURES IN FIREARMS CONTROL ACT

The new Firearms Control Act differs greatly from the 1969 Arms and Ammunitions Act. Here are the most important innovations.

1. The new Act conforms with our new constitution

2. The Act sets out clearly how people can apply for firearms licenses. This includes a two phase application process, including getting a competency certificate and then getting a licence for a gun.

The competency certificate is entirely new. The applicant must meet a range of criteria to gain a competency certificate. S/he must be:
· 21 years old
· Pass a thorough background check
· Not have a criminal record for a wide range of crimes
· Know the law and know how to use firearms
The certificate is valid for five years. The competency must be valid if a person wants to apply for a gun licence.

Once a person has a valid competency certifricate, they can apply for a licence to own a gun.

Depending on a person's needs, the Act limits the number of guns for which a person can get a licence:
· One gun for self-defence
· Up to four for occasional hunters or sportsshooters (but only one handgun)
· No limit for dedicated hunters and sports shooters, but they must be proven members of hunter or sports organisations and show a need for additional firearms
· No limit for people who use firearms for business purposes - security companies, firearm instructors, game hunters, etc. - but subject to staunch conditions

Renewals: all firearms licences must be renewed every:
· Two years for business purposes
· Five years for self-defence
· Ten years for hunting or sports shooting

3. Limits on ammunition: you can only own 200 rounds of ammunition for each gun you own and only ammunition suitable for that particular gun. This does not apply to dedicated hunters or sports people.

4. There is a more developed structure for administering firearms licences, including:
· An enlarged and updated Central Firearms Register (CFR)
· Designated Firearms Officers to scrutinize applications and implement the law

5. Regulation of firearm sales: firearms can only be bought or sold from a dealer

6. The new administrative structure is strengthened by a comprehensive system of recording and tracking firearms. This requires that:
· Dealers
· Manufacturers
· Importers, Exporters and Firearms Transporters
· Gunsmiths
· Official Institutions (the police, the military, Home Affairs, etc)
record details of each gun and the ammunition they have, and regularly report to the CFR. In return, the CFR is required to establish and maintain comprehensive databases on each of these.

7. The burden is now placed on the individual licence holder to report lost, stolen or damaged documents or lost or stolen firearms.

8. The Act is far clearer about how and when the police or court should declare that a person is unfit to carry a firearm. A declaration of unfitness lasts for five years.

9. Search and seizure: the police are given stronger powers to:
· Ask for information from people carrying firearms
· Inspect premises
· Take bodily samples from suspects
· Do ballistic testing of firearms suspected to have been used in crimes

10. Penalties: there is a new, two tier structure of penalties, where the person can pay an administrative fine (without getting a criminal record) for minor offences but faces possibly staunch prison sentences if convicted of major offences. If a person is unhappy with a fine, they can appeal the fine in court.

11. The Minister has new special powers to declare:
· Amnesties
· Gun free zones

12. Transitional provisions: there is a five year transition plan allowing people who already have gun licences to gradually fit into the new system.

 

[ris]

as a dirtay forinner i am a bit dim on us firearms law. i understand that the retailer is required to do a background check before transaction of a firearm and that the purchaser must have a licence, but what happens in private sales? is it a case of being up to the seller how much they give a crap about who they sell to?

 

[Gato_Solo]

as a dirtay forinner i am a bit dim on us firearms law. i understand that the retailer is required to do a background check before transaction of a firearm and that the purchaser must have a licence, but what happens in private sales? is it a case of being up to the seller how much they give a crap about who they sell to?

Unfortunately, yes...with this caveat. Here, the sale must be reported to the local authorities (police) within 1 working day. If the person who buys the weapon is on the bad-boy list, then the weapon is confiscated. This works only if the person gives their correct name, though. Fake ID's are hard to spot now-a-days. Not the best system, but, until everybody has a fingerprint, or retinal, scanner, it's the best that can be done.

 

[ris]

how can the authorities find out if firearms are being sold on without being reported?