Closing A Loophole For Felons

"On April 27 of this year, Mark Williams of Bradenton, Fla., purchased a semiautomatic handgun from a private seller who had advertised it in the newspaper. Later that day, Williams allegedly used the weapon to kill his estranged wife, Racquel Soliz-Williams, who had filed a restraining order against him.
The incident is a tragic example of how an enormous loophole provides easy access to firearms for people like Williams. A former convicted felon who was also under a restraining order, Williams would not have passed the federally required background check were he to have attempted a purchase from a federally licensed dealer. But private transactions are not covered by federal laws and they're not covered by most states, including Florida. That exemption in the law is the reason why gun shows, which provide the combination of a wide choice of firearms offered from "private collections" with the absence of background checks, have achieved notoriety as venues of choice for disqualified buyers. But it is a loophole that also applies to the private sale of an individual gun like the one Williams spotted in the classified ad.
Racquel Soliz-Williams' death painfully confirms how disastrous the gun lobby's stubborn blockage of sensible reforms, such as required background checks on all gun sales, can be. But to John Johnson, executive director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV), it also demonstrates another, often overlooked, problem: The role of newspaper classified advertisements in expediting questionable gun sales.
That is why he and his organization have launched a multi-state effort called the Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole.
Created in November, 2001, the Campaign includes member groups in 16 states and has resulted in a total of 12 newspapers restricting or eliminating gun advertisements from their classified-ad sections. "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,566393,00.html

The "private party" loophole?

And they're working to close it...

At least you finally admit that it's every person to person sale that you're out to eliminate under your smoke screen of unlicensed dealers at gun shows sobbing.

Since we all know full well that the BATF(E) already has the regulations to handle anyone acting as a dealer (buying and selling firearms as a business).

to somebody who's dumb enough to buy it.

IMHO.

Remember seeing a poll a few years ago that pointed out that many Americans thought the Brady law already covered gun shows and situations like this.

...had something to do with Greg, Bobby, Peter, Marcia, Jan, Cindy, Carol, Mike, Cousin Oliver, Tiger the dog, and Alice the housekeeper.

Not to mention Sam the Butcher.

:-)

By closing all loopholes, do you REALLY think criminals will not get guns?

If we make it so that only legal sales can be made through licensed dealers (with effective, comprehensive background checks), we can keep guns and bad guys separated.

I mean that seems very naive.

Hell, that is very naive.

Overegulating the normal market such as you indicate will simply increase the size of the blackmarket, it will do little to 'keep guns and bad guys separated'.

Just look at the blackmarket for drugs, about the most highly regulated things we have.

If a 'bad guy' decides he wants a gun, he can and will get one, even if they are totally 100% banned.

I beg forgiveness in advance if it's "naive".

"Overegulating the normal market such as you indicate will simply increase the size of the blackmarket, it will do little to 'keep guns and bad guys separated'.

Just look at the blackmarket for drugs, about the most highly regulated things we have."

Might we usefully ask where the PRODUCT for this black market (in drugs) comes from? And where, on the other hand, the product for a black market in firearms might come from?

I've asked before ... is it common for people to cook up a batch of revolvers in their bathtub? Do subsistence farmers in Arkansas, or Colombia or Pakistan, grow pistols to supplement their incomes?

There's a black market in firearms in Canada. You know where they come from?

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/wd98-4a-e.pdf
(emphasis added)

Firearm Smuggling

The large number of unregistered, restricted firearms recovered by police indicates that firearms are being smuggled and illegally imported into Canada (e.g., Axon and Moyer, 1994: xiii: Department of Justice Canada, 1995: 12). The 1997 Annual Report on Organized Crime by the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada suggests that the United States is the source of most legal and illegal firearms in Canada. According to that report, "it is relatively easy for Canadians to acquire firearms in the United States either through an American accomplice or 'straw' purchaser, or directly by themselves. (...) Firearms are smuggled into Canada through normal ports of entry and the numerous unmanned border crossings" (CSIS, 1997: 15). However, the true extent of the problem is unknown and cannot presently be estimated.

According to the same CSIS report, firearm couriers are not necessarily habitual criminals. The smuggling of firearms into the country appears to involve individuals or small groups moving shipments containing between three and 12 firearms (Ibidem). The consultations conducted by the Firearm Smuggling Work Group (Department of Justice Canada, 1995) revealed how little systematic information actually exists on smuggling activities.

In Canada, offenders may obtain illegal firearms from the millions of firearms that can be legally purchased or owned in the United States, but are either prohibited or restricted in this country. Another large source of firearms is from the Central American subregion which, as one of the major areas of confrontation during the Cold War, was supplied with firearms that are still in circulation and available to criminal groups (Chloros et al., 1997; United Nations, 1997c:19).

<trace many of the Central American firearms to their source, and where do we end up?>

Illegally imported firearms may well have been legally manufactured and exported; legally imported firearms may have been illegally exported; illegally acquired firearms in one location may be legally sold in another, and so on and so forth. It may be very difficult to control the trafficking in firearms at the national level without addressing the question of the international firearms trade. And, as Goldring (1997: 1) argued, it will prove equally difficult to control the illicit international market in firearms without monitoring and controlling domestic access to these weapons.

Several authors have noted that a lack of international cooperation may weaken national efforts to control illegal access to firearms (Goldring, 1997). ...

And people wonder why there are so many guns on the streets of Chicago ...

But back to our sheep:

http://www.cfc.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/explor_rpt.asp#Table 5

When limiting the analysis to handguns involving crime <in Toronto>, almost one out of five handguns seized by police as a result of a criminal occurrence were not traceable because the serial number was missing. Seven out of ten traceable handguns were unregistered. When the two findings are combined, three-quarters (76 percent) of handguns linked to a crime were "illegal", either because of missing serial numbers or because they were unregistered.

A handgun in Canada that is not (and has not been) registered is almost certainlya handgun that has not been legally imported into Canada or sold legally in Canada; possession of handguns has been restricted for quite a few years now. It is almost certainly a handgun that was smuggled into Canada, almost certainly from the United States.

The handguns used by criminals in Canada -- specifically, a large proportion of the handguns used in homicides (only about 1/3 of homicides in Canada are committed with firearms, and fewer than 1/2 of *those*, 14% of homicides, are committed with handguns -- 2/3 of homicides in the US are committed with firearms, and over 1/2 of all homicides in the US are committed with handguns) and robberies (handguns are used in robberies in Canada more commonly than in homicides -- possibly 1/2 of the 1/5 of robberies that involve firearms) -- come from the United States. That's where *our* black market gets its product.

Here's an abstract of a paper on this point with a link to the PDF document (emphasis added):
http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/issues/LinkAbs3.html

Firearms: Licit/Illicit Links

This paper reviews the literature and the empirical research on the legal and illegal firearm markets in order to suggest a conceptual framework for understanding the issue in the international context. While firearms trafficking and drug trafficking share common distribution networks and are both forms of currency, there are significant differences. The vast majority of firearms recovered in crime were at one time legally owned. Consequently, the interplay between licit and illicit firearm markets, coupled with the durability of firearms and uneven national regulatory standards, results in very different market dynamics for firearms than for drugs. These factors also illustrate the need for multi-faceted intervention strategies. While effective crime prevention rests on addressing root causes of violence, there are also opportunities to reduce the lethality of violence by restricting access to firearms. The research to date, while limited, does suggest some potential intervention points, but clearly more research is required.

Where, pray tell, and how, would the black market in the United States be getting *its* product, in the long term?

.

Hungary
China
Pakistan
PI
Russia

All have Firearms Industries, and large criminal organizations and/or governments either unable to (or unwilling to, due to hard currency considerations) stop smuggling. You would be surpised about how much stuff 'disappears' in some countries and 'appears' in places halfway around the world. If the price is right. And I am talking about new firearms, not used ones, the list of places to acquire used firearms in bulk is a bit longer.

And those that have actual knowledge of the subject know that 'homebrew' firearms are actually fairly common in some places of the world. The Southern Philipines and the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan are a great examples of this they have artisans that can turn out a fully functional (or better than the original) Ak or M-16 from basically scrap metal.

BTW to 'homebrew' a firearm is not all that hard, it just takes a bit of machining knowledge, a few machine tools, and a firearm to copy. Most times it is not worth even the minimal effort that is really required to 'homebrew' a firearm, but in certain incidences it is.

That is where I 'pray tell' the US would be getting its firearms in the 'long term'. I would guess that the 'reason' most of the firearms on the blackmarket in Canada comes form the US is laziness, why go through the trouble of smuggling in a crate of pistols when you can just drive across the border have a buddy pick up a few, and drive back across.

But dont worry I dont hold your naivete against you, afterall everyone must acquire knowledge somewhere, sometime.

"Hungary
China
Pakistan
PI
Russia"

And which of those have contiguous borders with the USofA?

To get back to our "drugs" "analogy", are flows of drugs into the US from areas with contiguous borders not rather the largest problem?

Are large, profitable shipments of drugs not somewhat lighter and easier to conceal than large, profitable shipments of firearms?

"I would guess that the 'reason' most of the firearms on the blackmarket in Canada comes form the US is laziness, why go through the trouble of smuggling in a crate of pistols when you can just drive across the border have a buddy pick up a few, and drive back across."

I'm afraid I fail to take your point. That *is* smuggling.

The Canadian population is about 1/9 of the US population. The black-market demand for firearms is pretty much infinitesimal, as a proportion of the population, and not particularly elastic: lower prices or higher supply would really not result in tremendously higher demand. I think I'm seeing some relevant distinctions here between Canada and the US.

You might regard small importations as a function of "laziness". Actually, they seem to me to be more a function of demand. Why take the obvious risks to import more than are wanted -- or flood the market and thereby lower the price?

Would it even be *possible* to flood the US market for firearms??

But la di da. In any event. While much of my point was indeed that the US is a major supplier of illicit firearms on the world market, and thus that if it suddenly became, instead, a consumer, there'd be some supply problems there ... that wasn't my only point.

Do you seriously think that if the US set its mind to reducing the international production of and traffic in illicit arms, it wouldn't be able to do so?? That Hungary might not be a little vulnerable to pressure to do something in its own backyard to choke off the supply, if the US were to ask it politely to do that?

There's another little distinction here between arms and drugs, too. There isn't really any incentive for a lot of countries to reduce drug production. (C'mon, surely you realize that the US's efforts in, say, Colombia actually promote coca production, just for one instance.) In addition to the traffic being rather more easily controlled, reducing the illicit production/export of firearms might reasonably be expected to be something that a few more countries might be willing to take on board.

International cooperation really can be a beautiful thing, y'know. To date, the US is the single biggest obstacle on the road to controlling the illicit traffic in small arms. What might happen if, instead, it became that initiative's biggest booster?

Of course, that ain't gonna happen while Dubya and his cronies get to speak for you.

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0108arms_body.html

The United States must also acknowledge its role in global arms trafficking. The United States is the largest producer of small arms in the world, with more than half of the world's producers based in the United States. Many arms traffickers buy relatively inexpensive firearms in the United States and resell them on the black market abroad because the penalties are relatively light compared with the penalties for smuggling drugs--and the profit margin is high. Arms brokers bypass regulatory norms and facilitate weapons transfers from states to non-state actors and buyers who could not otherwise obtain them.

The United States chooses to ignore the extent of this dynamic and sees any effort to address the matter as potential infringement on the rights of U.S. citizens to own firearms. At the UN conference, Bolton assured that "the United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

In the Americas, the consequences of ambivalence could be substantial. When peace comes to Colombia, thousands if not millions of small arms and light weapons--many of U.S. origin--will need to be decommissioned before they filter throughout the region and overseas.

In pandering to the gun lobby, the Bush administration showed what little regard it has for strengthening international efforts to deal with trafficking in small arms. President Bush promised to elevate the status of the Americas in his foreign policy. If he intends to follow through on this promise, his administration must realize that the problem of illicit trafficking in small arms is more complex and serious than the attention it gave to it at the UN conference, and acknowledge the implications for the Americas.

Funny how they seem to speak for so many ... Democrats ... on this point though, isn't it?

.

And which of those have contiguous borders with the USofA?

That has little to do with smuggling in these days of open borders, especially not if you are speaking of something as easy to smuggle as arms. Hell the US Customs Service has already caught the Chinese Government smuggling in Containers full of AKs (several thousand at a time) into the US.

To get back to our "drugs" "analogy", are flows of drugs into the US from areas with contiguous borders not rather the largest problem?

True, and more than likely so is the case with firearms, but like most drugs they are not manufactured in the countries with contiguous borders, but rather in countries further away, with those border countries simply being the way points in the trade.

Are large, profitable shipments of drugs not somewhat lighter and easier to conceal than large, profitable shipments of firearms?

Nope, It is easier to smuggle arms than drugs. You can train dogs to smell drugs, but it is fairly hard to train a dog to tell the difference between oily engine parts and oily gun parts. And the 'street value' of arms might actually make them more profitable pound for pound over drugs, especially if we are talking about a situation with a 'full ban'.

Why take the obvious risks to import more than are wanted -- or flood the market and thereby lower the price?

Would it even be *possible* to flood the US market for firearms??

If it is not possible for a smuggler to 'flood the market' then why would they worry about it? Import as much as you want and roll in the profits.

While much of my point was indeed that the US is a major supplier of illicit firearms on the world market, and thus that if it suddenly became, instead, a consumer, there'd be some supply problems there ... that wasn't my only point.

Well if you increase the demand and the supply is limited, then the price will go up and more people will be willing to risk becoming a supplier to get the higher profits.

Do you seriously think that if the US set its mind to reducing the international production of and traffic in illicit arms, it wouldn't be able to do so??

That sure has worked well with drugs hasnt it?

That Hungary might not be a little vulnerable to pressure to do something in its own backyard to choke off the supply, if the US were to ask it politely to do that?

Sure, but someplace else may not, and some other place might play at cooperation, but do something else behind closed doors, much as they do with drugs.

There's another little distinction here between arms and drugs, too. There isn't really any incentive for a lot of countries to reduce drug production. (C'mon, surely you realize that the US's efforts in, say, Colombia actually promote coca production, just for one instance.) In addition to the traffic being rather more easily controlled, reducing the illicit production/export of firearms might reasonably be expected to be something that a few more countries might be willing to take on board.

Well increase the demand for blackmarket guns and the incentive for alot of countries to increase production/shipments of said guns would increase.

And I agree, alot of the anti-drug stuff in foreign countries does little to stem the market.

And why do you say that the traffic is 'rather more easily controlled'? do you have any evidence to back up this?

PS- the phrase 'from china' was supposed to be after the word 'pistols' in my post, dunno what happened to it. So the Statement was to read "why go through the trouble of smuggling in a crate of pistols from China when you can just drive across the border have a buddy pick up a few, and drive back across"

that I hadn't said what I had said, why, I'll just not bother with a whole lot of that.

What I said, in this instance, was:

There's another little distinction here between arms and drugs, too. There isn't really any incentive for a lot of countries to reduce drug production. (C'mon, surely you realize that the US's efforts in, say, Colombia actually promote coca production, just for one instance.)

Ignoring that rather important parenthetical bit, you responded to:

Do you seriously think that if the US set its mind to reducing the international production of and traffic in illicit arms, it wouldn't be able to do so??

by saying:

That sure has worked well with drugs hasnt it?

So I guess I'll just repeat what I said: C'mon, surely you realize that the US's efforts in, say, Colombia actually promote coca production, just for one instance.

You seem to think that I must agree that the exercise of US influence to stem the illicit traffic in firearms would not work, since the exercise of US influence to stem the illicit traffic in drugs has not worked.

If I were to agree with that, I would have to agree that the US has exercised influence to stem the illicit traffic in drugs.

And all I can say, if you are saying that this is the case, is: how gullible are you, really? You seriously believe that the US is engaged in trying to stem the illicit traffic in drugs, at the international level??? Dear me.

I thought that all sensible, informed people knew what the US was really up to, say in Colombia, and that it has nothing at all to do with stemming the illicit traffic in drugs.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0326-03.htm

"Colombia's military uses helicopters and airplanes to spray rainforests with glyphosate, a chemical manufactured by Monsanto," Panetta said. "They're supposedly killing coca plants, but they spray indiscriminately. In La Hormiga, a small city in the Amazon Territory, the spraying killed medicinal plants and food crops such as yucca. Yet, the adjacent coca fields flourished. Glyphosate seeps into the soil and water. Fish die in contaminated rivers."

... Residents, often indigenous people, develop diarrhea, fever and other ailments. Besides dead crops and livestock, paramilitary soldiers, working closely with the military, kidnap, torture and massacre people to force them off the land. "Indigenous peoples leave their sacred ancestral lands," said Palacios, who lives in Putumayo.

"If farmers stay, the paramilitary forces them to grow coca to finance its operations," Panetta added. "The farmers must also pay taxes to the paramilitary. But when the guerillas, who want reforms, find out, they attack the farmers as collaborators."

<we do know who funds and arms the paramilitaries, right?>

... Meanwhile, the violent war on drugs has driven 1 million Colombians off their land. That may be the whole point.

"The U.S. has a hidden agenda in the war on drugs," Panetta said. "It is getting and keeping control of Colombia's resources: gold, silver, copper. Colombia may have the largest oil reserve in the Americas. The U.S. wants to control it." Gamboa Zuniga agreed: "The armed participants in this conflict are fighting for control of strategic places for business."

But the so-called "drug war" continues. "Research has yielded new chemicals such as a mutating fungus which would adhere to vegetation better," Panetta said. "Since it wouldn't wash off in the rainforests' downpours, it would wreak ecological havoc. We must urge our legislators to oppose this destruction . . . We don't need mutating fungi. We need anti-drug and drug-treatment programs here . Stop the demand and you stop the supply."

(Of course, you also need social justice in the United States in order to curtail demand ... and a little of that social justice outside the US in order to curtail supply ...)

How come everybody can figure out what the US is up to in Iraq, but not what it is up to in Colombia??

"And I agree, alot of the anti-drug stuff in foreign countries does little to stem the market."

For us to agree that the US's efforts to stem the illicit traffic in drugs at the international level had failed, we'd first have to agree that the US has made such efforts. Ha.

And of course there are no effective efforts to deal with supply on the domestic scene, either. Who here couldn't get a nice cache of his/her favourite narcotic or other non-prescription drug by the end of the day? Really, the war on drugs. To laugh.

So no. No analogy. No relevance to the potential success of genuine efforts to stem the flow of illicit arms into the US if domestic supply were severely regulated.

And I really do think that if we're talking about illegal imports to meet domestic demand where there are severe domestic restrictions, we really aren't talking about a crate of this and a crate of that. I mean, even if we were, there wouldn't be much of a problem to worry about, not compared to what's being sold legally within the US every year now.

And so I'll just maintain, as I did, that if the US wished to ensure that flows of illicit arms into the US (and of course into Canada, and into anywhere else in the world) were kept to a reasonable minimum, it really could do it. Just like if it actually wished to do something about flows of drugs into the US, it could do that too.

Social justice, at home and abroad, will certainly always be the best defence against these things. Social justice and massive numbers of firearms in private circulation just don't seem ever to go hand in hand, oddly enough.

.

that drugs don't set off metal detectors and can be smuggled in any shape....guns are fixed shapes and made of metal....

But then we had some "enthusiasts" on here the other day trying to pretend that criminals get their guns by stealing them from police...

criminals get their guns by stealing them from police

They buy them!!!!

http://www.cincypost.com/news/1999/guns083199.html

Hundreds of Cincinnati police handguns are being resold to the public even as the city pursues a lawsuit against the nation's 16 top gunmakers for making and selling firearms, officials said.

In Cincinnati and other cities that have filed lawsuits against gunmakers, the problem has been compounded. While the city blames manufacturers for making and marketing handguns, its own firearms may have ended up on the street as well.

Two birds with one stone!

for "black market guns in Canada.

There's a black market in firearms in Canada. You know where they come from?

If Canada is the utopia you claim it to be, why on earth would they need guns?

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/marijuan.htm

Canada increasingly is becoming a source country for high-grade marijuana to the United States.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n687/a07.html

Saying the United States already is fighting a ''flood of illicit substances'' from Canada, Murray warned that if the Chretien government loosens penalties on pot it may face tighter border security to combat drug trafficking.


http://www.emergency.com/canadadr.htm

Situated on the Pacific Ocean and the U.S. border, Vancouver has become a last stop for drugs bound for the United States. Vancouver is the largest port on the west coast of North America and has strong ties to Asia and Latin American countries on the Pacific rim through business and family connections. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) say these are leading reasons why Vancouver is a haven for South American drug cartels, biker gangs, and Asian triads involved in the drug trade.

http://www.casa-alianza.org/EN/human-rights/other-exploit/990407.shtml

Around 250 Honduran children are being used as street dealers by drug trafficking gangs in Canada, the non-governmental organization (NGO) Casa Alianza reported here today.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n313/a07.html

In addition to being smuggled into the country on a large scale, cannabis is also cultivated within Canada with annual production at about 800 tonnes - 60 per cent of which may be smuggled into the United States, it says.

I'm certain the amount given in these articles has risen since they were published, so I gues that answeres your question of Where, pray tell, and how, would the black market in the United States be getting *its* product, in the long term?.

"If Canada is the utopia you claim it to be, why on earth would they need guns?"

Or anything else? Surely, obviously, by-definition-ally, utopias don't need anything at all.

On the off chance that Canada isn't actually Utopia (if you are as bad at getting self-deprecating humour as you're making yourself out to be, you'd better stay on your side of the border), why would "they" need guns?

I dunno. You could try asking someone who said "they" did need guns. I don't recall saying that, myself. I did say a fair bit about firearms used in the commission of crimes coming from the US.


"Canada increasingly is becoming a source country for high-grade marijuana to the United States."

You're welcome!!!

"Saying the United States already is fighting a ''flood of illicit substances'' from Canada, Murray warned that if the Chretien government loosens penalties on pot it may face tighter border security to combat drug trafficking."

This is news to someone? "US threatens to throw its economic weight around to make everyone else in the world do what it wants." Gee. Dog bites man. (Oh, and if you think that "what it wants" is to stem the flow of drugs into the US, in this case, you're sadly deluded.)

Just imagine if Canada threatened to tighten border security to combat illicit arms trafficking into this country, if the US didn't join the civilized world in that respect and get a grip on its domestic insanity. Those who believe that might makes right need not bother thinking any further. (Any of them around here?)

Oh, I see, the rest of it is pretty much all about pot too. I was hoping to find a point.

"I'm certain the amount given in these articles has risen since they were published, so I gues that answeres your question of Where, pray tell, and how, would the black market in the United States be getting *its* product, in the long term?."

Uh, I'm missing something again. Or maybe you are.

The cannabis in question is largely grown in Canada, boy. We don't grow firearms. And we're pretty unlikely to start. And we really just don't give a shit about pot, ya know? The outlawing and punishing of possession is widely regarded as not just dumb, but a violation of individual rights. Different priorities ... even if you couldn't quite say we have our priorities straight in this instance.

Your quotes about other narcotics being smuggled into the US via Canada just doesn't quite answer the question about how firearms would be smuggled into Canada or the US. A trunkful of pot ... not to mention smack ... just goes a lot farther than a trunkful of <gibberish-letters-and-numbers with a trigger>s do.

Any evidence of firearms being smuggled into the US from/via Canada at the moment? Given the pretty much insatiable illicit demand down there, you might expect to see at least a bit of that, mightn't you, if it were reasonably feasible?

And we're still not addressing the question of the source. The US has no interest in stemming the flow of drugs at the source. (Well, except when the source is Canada, and that's got nothing to do with actually stemming the flow of drugs; there has to be *some* way around that damned free trade agreement, when the panels just keep on ruling against you ...) So I'm hardly going to accept its failure to do that as evidence of its inability to stem the flow of illicit arms at the source. Really, hardly.

.

Make NICS available to individuals who have a used gun to sell, with safeguards to ensure that it does not get abused.

Make anyone who fails to use NICS and sells to a prohibited person criminally liable.

And there's ample opportunity to improve the quality of the NICS data.

Too bad that most "pro-RKBA" types vehemently oppose it.

"The right to sell guns to criminals shall not be infringed." :eyes:

"The right to sell guns to criminals shall not be infringed." would be a collective right reserved only for government entities.

I just worry about the potential for abuse such a system could have.

Not just governmental abuse, but individuals abusing such a system to get information on people. After all would you want the guy/girl next door (or really anyone) to be able to call up some 1-800 number and see if you have a felony conviction, a RO for domestic violence, or have been adjucated mentally ill?

The background check hater presents an abuse scenario, a rationalist tells how it could be prevented, the background check hater presents another, more contrived abuse scenario, a rationalist tells how it could be prevented etc. until it comes to the background check hater saying that there will always be a 1/1000000000 chance that somebody will somehow abuse it "and I just don't want anyone restricting my right to sell guns to anyone I like".

I just thought I'd skip whole that loop this time around.

"gun nuts just want to sell guns to criminals and they oppose any and everything that will stop it" drivel.

Pro RKBA posters in the main seem convinced by the "slippery slope" analogy. This poses massive problems when proposing any form of gun control. The argument goes "If we do X it's only a matter of time till X then we'll have no guns". I don't think I've ever seen a debate with less room or willingness to compromise.

So far the 'slippery slope' has been all too real.

Seems that everytime gun control gets discussed in Congress the pro-gun people have in the end compromised, only to have the anti-gun people revert to their original positions after the work is done. After a while the willingness to compromise in the face of a someone who does that becomes non-existent.

For example there was the Brady Bill.

both sides compromised and created it. Guess what? A year or so later the 'Brady Bill II' was proposed with the anti-gunners reverting back to their original positions and expecting the pro-gunners to start the discussion from the Brady Bill. That behavior(and the AWB) made ALOT of pro-gun people say 'no more compromise, we have reached our limit'.

If we ever could get together and cooperate we could probably fix alot of the problems, but that will never happen. It has become a fight with no quarter with little or no trust on either side.

In response to your excellent observation:
"Pro RKBA posters in the main seem convinced by the "slippery slope" analogy."


from: http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/resources/quotes.htm

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step." - Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton California

"Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens." - New York Times, 12/21/93

"The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take a step at a time and go for limited access first." - Joyner Sims, Deputy Commissioner, Florida State Health Dept., Chicago Tribune, 11/7/93

"To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." - Sarah Brady, Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93.
(I threw in the last quote there as a bonus)

which suggests that they are all from the amazingly dishonest wave of hysteria the gun industry threw up back then over the Brady law....

www.handgunfree.org

Consider the source.....

Are you?

Why do you suppose he didn't have a REAL link?

Here it is again:

http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/resources/quotes.htm

"Listing of these quotes in no way infers that HFA endorses these quotes or the individuals and organizations who have said them."?

Handgun-Free America, founded in 2002 as a non-profit, grassroots organization, is dedicated to eradicating the epidemic of handgun violence in America by reframing the debate on handguns. Our objective is to focus American citizens’ attention on the necessity for a complete ban on private handgun ownership.

and

Handgun-Free America is taking a stand for banning private handgun ownership in America.

http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/about/mission.htm

Sure, they don't endorse them. That's why they post them on their website. <snicker>

At least you responded in your fashion.

but who's surprised?

:shrug:

They posted the quotes on their Web site. Suuuuuuuuuure they don't endorce them.

:eyes:

about closing off a way criminals easily buy guns...

I won't re-hash all of the details here, but the state of California went back on its word on the "SKS Sporter" rifles by first saying they were not assault weapons (that had to be registered), and then saying they were AWs after all (and could not be registered because it was too late).

That plus the assault weapon registration deadline extension fiasco destroyed what little credibility the California legislature and Department of Justice had in the eyes of many gun owners.

Under my system, any person who gets his or her background checked would get a snail-mail letter informing him or her that a check was done and who requested it (name and address). Use of the system for other than a gun sale would be a crime.

They're skeptical at first, but if I emphasize the following points they often accept the idea:

- The system would not create a gun registry,

- Use of NICS is optional (with responsibility on you if you don't use it and sell to a prohibited person). You wouldn't have to check up on your wife before giving her a Smith & Wesson Airlite for her bodice.

You are right that some vehemently oppose it. Typical reactions from them are "If I sell a gun to someone I don't know, I want no liability for his or her FUTURE misbehavior. The transaction should be at arm's length."