deep woods wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Not when you look at the statistics ... and not what the NRA puts out.
I'm speaking of decisions made at all levels, from the officer on the street, to the prosecuting attorneys, and their respective agencies, about whether arrests and prosecution will occur for certain offenses. I doubt that there are statistics for that. I'm not sure what statistics you refer to-we may be talking about different things.
I beloeive that is called an assumption since there is nothing invovled but a belief. The fact is that three of the last fireatms I have purchased were from individuals with no background check performed. Only one of those people knew me in any way. That is anaecdotal information, but it indicates the statisics of private sale weapons beinb used in a crime have a personal experience support.
Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Given the costs of both guns and ammo, especially after each new round of "they are going to take your guns, buy them now" price hikes, not those artificial hikes being removed would smooth the costs somewhat.
The law of supply and demand applies to guns and ammunition, just as it does to all commodities, and is irrelevant to my point.
Why is it irrelevant to the discussion if the side you support creates fake supply and demand issues through lies and deception to increase the cost to consumers?
Quote:
I am speaking of costs imposed by government regulation, that are outside of market driven forces.
Costs are costs regardless of their source. A political belief in one or the other does not make the cost decrease.
Quote:
Those 'artificial' costs are burdensome, and are often designed to place limits on the ability of people to participate in that market, as was done with tobacco products.
Yes, tobacco is subject to extensive "sin taxation" due to the impact of health costs relating to ist use, but that is not what is being discussed. I could forsee that approach being used at some point if the health impact of firearms is not lessened, which preventing acquistion by some and adequate training for all would be expaected to do.
Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The government already bears some of the costs as do some of the owners.
C'mon, the government is us!
Fewer of us every week as a result.
Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Only if those owners break the law and tranfer a weapon illegally. If the transfer is done legally there is no liability for the transfer. If they break the law and a criminal gets a gun in order to commit a crime they are part of the conspiracy to commit that crime.
If someone tranfers a weapon illegally, then they that is the crime that they committed. To be guilty of conspiracy, a person would have to transfer the gun to a second party with the foreknowledge and intent that it would be used by the second party to commit a crime. The legality of the transfer is actually irrelevant. No new laws are needed, persons can be prosecuted under existing laws.
No new laws would be needed? There is no law requiring a background check for private transfer now. Thus, there is no illegal sale by an individual now unless they can be proven to have been in the business, which is nearly impossilbe. Do you know how many guns you can sell before you are considered in the business? The law does not state any level. Thus the first defense is disbelief they were doing anything illegal and the ability to convict goes through the floor.
The knowledge level is not required if the laws specifies the criteria. Just like the legal criteria stating that anyone killed in the execution of a felony is automatically classified as first degree murder ... even if there was no intent to harm anyone by the criminals involved. It also applies to every person involved with the crime even if they were not present at the time. The get away driver for example is chatged the same as anyone else involved even if all they were doing is driving. It is the big stick to help people make a better choice and not do someyhing illegal.
You are believeing too much of the gun lobby propaganda.