100% of criminals support a ban on guns.

[Peter1x9]

Criminals don't like it when the people they choose to rob/rape/carjack/murder/etc are capable of defending themselves.

[ileus]

1. plus criminals don't want people being rude and tacky in public or private.

[chemp]

2. or spitting on sidewalks.

crude and uncalled for.

[spin]

3. Guns make the workplace dangerous for many criminals.

In this video a criminal describes why he supports banning all guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

[safeinOhio]

4. 100% of gun crime victims

don't like easy access to handguns by criminals.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

5. 100% of law abiding gun owners

don't like criminals having firearms of any kind.

I don't consider having to steal a firearm to be easy access. I consider that a crime.

[safeinOhio]

6. Straw purchases and

no background checks on privates sales. Illegal and easy. I'm a legal owner and carry legally and would have no problem with my state registering all handguns. If crooks stole a gun, they'd have a more difficult time selling them and they could be traced back to the owner and returned.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

7. What would you suggest be done about it?

Straw purchases are a person who passes an NICS check buying a gun for someone who wouldn't. How are you going to stop that?

A private sale is just that - a private sale. Government has no authority to dictate how one sells his personal property. Besides, even if it could, there would be nothing to prevent the sale from taking place.

A crook would have no trouble selling it - especially to another crook. Seriously - if you're buying your guns from some guy on the street, are you REALLY worrying about where he got it?

[safeinOhio]

12. A straw purchaser can now just say

"I sold it". No record needed. Pretty hard to enforce, that is why it is so common.

Personal property, like say real estate? Lots and lots of laws on the transfer of real estate.

Might not end all sales of stolen guns, but would make it more difficult and dangerous to do so. Even the possession of an unregistered handgun would be a crime as it is not now. Try to convict anyone that simply says, "I bought it legally in a private sale" with no proof or record to counter it.

Why, if you are legal to purchase a handgun, are you so against laws that would help protect that right?

Of course this argument has been repeated over and over again here and few if any will change their minds, including the majority of the public that support the regulation of private sales of handguns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

16. Real estate is a bit different.

Most of those laws have to do with the fact that one has to somehow prove he owns the land. It isnt like you can throw a few hundred acres in your pocket. Those laws protect the owner far more than anything.

Registration has been deemed illegal by the USSC, and in fact, criminals would be exempt from it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Unless you outlaw guns altogether... you can not get rid of Straw Purchases.

Ultimately, banning private sales would mean all criminal gun procurement would then be classified as a straw purchase or theft/loss.

A straw purchase is done by someone who is legally able to buy the gun. As long as qualified citizens can legally buy guns via FFL transactions/transfers... there will always be some willing to use that power to buy on behalf of criminals. And a criminal's possesion of a gun is already against the law - so breaking another law to get that illegally possesed item (to enable further criminal action, no doubt) is simply another trivial matter to the criminal.

Even if you outlawed private sales they would still happen... the sale itself would just be illegal for BOTH parties instead of just the prohibited buyer. Remmeber, as stated above... some people with the ability to legally get guns will be supply source for illegal private sales. Said otherwise, "Criminals will be criminals."

In summary, as long as legal buyers for guns exist then a portion of those will supply the criminals.
Unfortunately it is effectively impossible to evaluate a legal purchaser's intent or morals if they lie.
I fail to see how your concerns have any realistic solutions aside from a blanket prohbition of firearms.

[oneshooter]

9. "could be traced back to the owner" who could be charged with whatever crime was committed

as an accessory, also be charged with failure to safely secure said handgun, he will also be liable for the misuse of said handgun and probably be sued by the victims.

Apparently this is needed :sarcasm:

The above has been proposed by several members of DU as needed to control the "spread of handguns"

[one-eyed fat man]

10. So if your

teenager takes the family car, gets drunk and plows into a minivan full of schoolkids you are the one who needs to go to jail?

[safeinOhio]

13. If you give him the booze and car

you should. You will end up responsible for the cost anyway. It's your car and your teenager.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. If i give it to him yes.

However, if he does both without my knowledge or permission, its a different story. Hell, lets forget its a teenager. Lets say an adult rents a car and then goes out and gets drunk and kills someone. You want to hold Hertz responsible? Of course not. Reasonable people recognize the car was out of Hertz' control and they are not in any way culpable. The fault lies purely with the adult who made the choice to drink and drive.

Same with guns. Just because I may be the owner, if it is stolen from me, I am not in control of it and not responsible for its misuse.

[oneshooter]

14. "So solly Chally" forgot the sarcasm thingy. n/t

[jpak]

11. A 100% stupid post

yup

[oneshooter]

18. I agree, your post is. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

19. Yep - your post sure is. n/t

[Glassunion]

20. Well... That settles that... or sumthin' tsss ts tssss

[ileus]

15. 100% Excellent post!