Guns used in Crimes

[thatgtrguy]

Almost half are acquired by a straw purchase. (ie: I can't legally buy a gun so you go buy a gun and give it to me)

The big argument in INGO is that anti-gun legislation isn't aimed at criminals.

So let's talk about this specific brand of criminal. What can be done to tighten the noose on straw purchases?

 

[Thegeek]

The only way to prove it is with some form of registration. Not gonna happen.

I would say straw purchase is nearly the same as private transfer without background check. Even still, let's say I say to hell with NICS and sell you a private gun. Since there's no registration, how can they prove I sold it to you?

 

[ashby koss]

Simple. Track gun the gu to gun store. Request 4473 on who bought it. Hold them partially accountable if they wont provide info for who they sold it to. All the data is already in place, and they CAN do this! ie, re-enforce (or simply enforce actually) laws already on the books.

 

[Spencir]

I don't think there would be an effective way to combat it without infringing on our rights.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Simple. Track gun the gu to gun store. Request 4473 on who bought it. Hold them partially accountable if they wont provide info for who they sold it to. All the data is already in place, and they CAN do this! ie, re-enforce (or simply enforce actually) laws already on the books.

I originally liked this idea.

But it's a non starter. Isn't it?

You're essentially saying there's no way to stop the straw purchase before it happens. You can only wait for the criminal to commit the next crime.

 

[Thegeek]

Simple. Track gun the gu to gun store. Request 4473 on who bought it. Hold them partially accountable if they wont provide info for who they sold it to. All the data is already in place, and they CAN do this! ie, re-enforce (or simply enforce actually) laws already on the books.

You sold me a gun that I sold to John Q Criminal who gave it to is brother... who 's a repeat offender. How's that work for you? You sold it to me, but lost the bill of sale, or I just tell the cops.... wasn't me. I never bought a gun from that guy.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Every idea runs head long into the "shall not be infringed" wall regardless of how horrible the crime is. That's.... frustrating....

 

[the1kidd03]

impose much tougher punishments for those who get caught with guns they're not supposed to and hold those who sold/gave it to them accountable as well....without registration which serves no purpose

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'll play.

Are you proposing giving non-FFL holders access to the NCIC?

Is the regime you propose voluntary or mandatory?

You're essentially saying there's no way to stop the straw purchase before it happens. You can only wait for the criminal to commit the next crime.

Correct. This is how we do criminal law in the USA. No prior restraint because of the Constitution.

Our Bureau of Pre-Crime has not been installed yet.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Simple. When they're caught prosecute them - same as any other law. Right now they're not being prosecuted and punished. Stop slapping them on the wrist and putting them back on the streets.

That kid killed in Chicago by the 17 year old - that guy was arrested several times and even was caught with an illegal gun during probation and NOTHING WAS DONE. That's why she's dead - probation officer and the prosecuting attorney's did not do their effin' jobs!

There's your answer - enforcement. Not more laws. No more checks. No more anything that doesn't work and intrudes on those that obey the law.

 

[thatgtrguy]

impose much tougher punishments for those who get caught with guns they're not supposed to and hold those who sold/gave it to them accountable as well....without registration which serves no purpose

Under current law you can't hold the person who gave/sold it accountable. A private sale doesn't require any checks of any kind.

This is why I would like all transaction to require some sort of basic check. So now you can hold the giver side of the straw sale to some level of account.

ie: You knew the person you were giving a gun to wouldn't pass the NICS call but you gave them a gun anyway. You're going to jail.

 

[singlestacksig]

Under current law you can't hold the person who gave/sold it accountable. A private sale doesn't require any checks of any kind.

This is why I would like all transaction to require some sort of basic check. So now you can hold the giver side of the straw sale to some level of account.

ie: You knew the person you were giving a gun to wouldn't pass the NICS call but you gave them a gun anyway. You're going to jail.

a private sale is not the same as a straw purchase, a straw purchase is when the purchaser buys a gun for someone else who they know is not able to purchase the gun legally. These are against the law, yet seldom are charges brought.. The columbine shooters got at least 1 gun in this way, yet the buyer was not charged..

if the government really wants to reduce these kind of sales, start enforcing the laws that are on the books..

 

[Birds Away]

Under current law you can't hold the person who gave/sold it accountable. A private sale doesn't require any checks of any kind.

This is why I would like all transaction to require some sort of basic check. So now you can hold the giver side of the straw sale to some level of account.

ie: You knew the person you were giving a gun to wouldn't pass the NICS call but you gave them a gun anyway. You're going to jail.

Wow, I've read several of your posts about this on different threads. You just can't wait to surrender your guns, huh?

 

[Hohn]

Every idea runs head long into the "shall not be infringed" wall regardless of how horrible the crime is. That's.... frustrating....

THat's......Liberty.

There are always those who will abuse it.

 

[printcraft]

Every idea runs head long into the "shall not be infringed" wall regardless of how horrible the crime is. That's.... frustrating....

Ah, the perils of living in a free society. Get a helmet.

See below... \/

THat's......Liberty.

There are always those who will abuse it.

 

[Thegeek]

How about if you use the threat of death in a crime, you get executed? Stop paying to give them better living conditions than poverty, and stop letting them do it again.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Wow, I've read several of your posts about this on different threads. You just can't wait to surrender your guns, huh?

I don't want to surrender my guns at all.

But I have a hard time believing that there is nothing that can be done to stop the flow of guns into criminal's hands.

But I think the gun community is far more worried about losing their guns than anything else. You value gun ownership above all else. I get that.

I think someone has to keep asking if there's a better way. Even if there's not one and zero new legislation comes of it. We owe it to ourselves to keep asking the question.

But we don't really want a better life for everyone. We just want to hang on to our guns at all costs.

Today my mind happen to be on the UBC because of Nutnfancy's video yesterday. I wanted to explore the subject. Ask questions. Have a better understanding of the stakes, consequences and potential rewards. I'm not a far left take all the guns away guy. I'm also not a far right "Shall not infringe" guy. Like most americans I believe there's a sensible middle ground.

And until someone takes away my first amendment right or I get booted out of the forum; I'll keep asking unpopular questions because I'm not a sheep of the far left or the far right.

 

[1donos]

It is already a crime. As soon as the penalty for this crime is severe enough the straw buyers will quit supplying criminals.

 

[eldirector]

Enforce existing laws.

If someone is caught with a gun, that should have that gun, prosecute them for it.

If someone is proven to be too dangerous to be trusted with a weapon (ie: convicted armed robber), why are they roaming the streets?

 

[singlestacksig]

Every idea runs head long into the "shall not be infringed" wall regardless of how horrible the crime is. That's.... frustrating....

What you are missing is there is a basic human right issue..
using logic similar to yours I could say x% of crimes are committed by [insert ethnic group].
there for it would be reasonable to restrict the movement of that group, and maybe even limit where they can live..

It would be a bad idea because it crosses the line of basic human rights..
the government having excessive control over who can own a gun crosses that same line.