Let's let up a bit with the snide remarks and assume that TTM is doing research for a project. If we address his questions in a civil, logical, and factual manner...we may be able to not only convince him that shooters as a whole are decent and intelligent folk...we may also be able to convince a few others who read his paper. Even if he is a troll who cannot or will not be convinced...maybe another anti will stumble on this thread and see the other side of the argument.
Shall we proceed?
TTM:
I thought the personal gun sale thing should have to have a background check and all that because I have seen people like my Uncle buy guns privately (and illegally), my dad talked to him and bought them from him though becaues they were illegal.
First off...assuming that we aren't dealing with stolen guns...in most jurisdictions, a private sale between adults isn't illegal. It only becomes illegal if the buyer has had his RKBA revoked by his own actions...such as a felony conviction or a documented substance abuse history. There is a law that flatly states that anyone engaging in the selling of firearms for profit...and who transfers ownership of greater than a set number per year must have a federal firearms license (FFL) to do so. This number varies from state to state, and some few jurisdictions do prohibit it altogether, but it's legal in most areas.
The burden of proof lies with the buyer. If he lies about his legal qulaifications, it doesn't put the seller in legal jeopardy, though a in a civil action, he could be held culpable should the buyer use the gun to shoot another person.
So...yes. It does carry an element of risk, but again...it's his decision whether or not to take that risk the same as it's your decision whether or not to eat a quart of ice cream every day, knowing the risks associated with coronary disease. Personal choice is the operative word here.
Next...by buying the guns from your uncle, your father also obtained them without a background check...which qualifies as an illegal transfer in your mind...even though your father is legally able to own and possess firearms....even though he is a relative.
There was a time that this wasn't an issue, and people bought and sold guns privately on a regular basis...even though it was technically illegal to exceed the legal limit after the 1968 GCA. I remember my father buying/selling/trading guns with the county sheriff at gun shows and in our home. (I won't name the county even though both men have long since died.)
In those days, crime wasn't as rampant. We didn't even lock our doors at night, and if somebody committed a crime with a gun...where the criminal got the gun wasn't even addressed. He used the gun to do his evil deed...and he went to jail for it. End of story. This is as it should be. Let each man be responsible for his actions, and remember that the means and the tool that he used to commit his misdeed is incidental.
No...I wouldn't sell a gun to a known violent felon or person with an unstable mental history. I wouldn't lend him my car, either...but "felon" doesn't automatically equate to dangerous. There are many felonies on the books that don't involve violence or presenting a danger to the public, and that don't...in my mind...prohibit a person convicted of such misdeeds from the right to keeping a gun for self-defense, sport, recreation, or collection.
There are a good many people that I knew in the 60s and 70s who were busted for simple possession of marijuana. In those days, a single joint would earn you a felony rap. These people can't legally even touch an empty gun...even though they haven't smoked pot in 35 or 40 years, and even though they've kept a clean record and have proven themselves as responsible people who have made positive contributions to their communities. They lost their RKBA...over one dumbass mistake when they were 18 or 19 years old.
Another guy that I grew up with got into a fight with his ex-girlfriend after she physically attacked him in a drunken rage...and was convicted of misdemeanor assault on a female because he wrestled her to the ground to keep her from clawing his eyes out. Most of us who knew her wondered how he was able to refrain for so long. 30 years later, a sheriff's deputy came to his house and confiscated two double shotguns left to him by his father, and his hunting rifles. He had 90 days to arrange for them to be sold, or they would be forfeit without compensation. It was his only conviction, aside from a couple of speeding tickets.
He is a law-abiding citizen, so he no longer has any firearms in his home. If he weren't law-abiding...he'd likely have a few, because
criminals don't obey the law.
So...where do we draw the line? How many more laws will be passed before entire groups or classes of people become criminals with the stroke of a pen?
How about we get back to basics, and hold
people fully responsible for what they do. Let's punish the murderer rather than infringing on the rights of his neighbors in the mistaken belief that if he hadn't had the tool, he wouldn't have committed the crime.
