Message 5177 of 5179 (823783)
11-16-2017 3:52 PM
Re: sense, possibly even common
New Cat's Eye -
|So 20-30% hugeness. That's consistent with my collection.|
Yes, the private market is pretty big. So if you want to avoid those checks - the loophole is wide enough for anyone to step through. No specialist knowledge is required.
|I'm not against background checks, but personally I'd rather hassle the people who are committing crimes than those who aren't.|
The point of the background check is to identify someone who has committed crimes. How else is a seller to know?
|I guess "closing the loophole" would mean that every time I sell a gun I would have to go through an FFL? Essentially banning all private transfers, period?|
Every time I sell a car there is paperwork to notify the change in ownership of the vehicle to the government. It doesn't ban me from selling my car privately.
|Ooh, straight to banning guns. Nice, thanks for being honest.|
Not all guns, just the ones that a clearly liable to causing problems.
|We have that in Illinois and it's not working here. Maybe at a federal level it would have a bigger impact, but I dunno.|
When a Chicago resident can pop over to Gary without much fuss, it does render the States a poor bellweather. Studies have indicated that many of the guns used in crimes in Chicago were bought in Indiana.
|Out of curiosity: How would you feel about a free speech license? Or a license for due process?|
Are you really curious? It looks like rhetoric to me. I don't see the need for the licences you reference. Illegally holding a firearm or driving a vehicle are possible, and it's good to have a system the police can use to efficiently estimate if that is the case.
I don't see any instances of a person who is prohibited from engaging in free speech or is banned from due process.
|What's the goal for that one?|
To allow victim's of damages to sue for costs and compensation. A firearm injury can rack up $350k in medical costs - and that doesn't take into account loss of earnings or business, compensation for pains and lost opportunities during recovery etc. The medical costs are typically borne by the tax payer or the victim's own insurance.
If gun holder's were insured - their insurance would cover the costs of any damage their negligence or malice caused rather than the injured party or the tax payer. Much like with car insurance.
|Could that goal be met with the penalties from criminal charges? |
I doubt many shooters are capable of covering those kinds of costs so fining people for that amount wouldn't generally result in the victim receiving compensation. A criminal going to prison doesn't pay a victim's doctor, doesn't pay their rent if they are unable to work for extended periods, doesn't cover their transportation costs if they are unable to drive or walk for some time etc.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.