Look, the problem isn’t selling a gun to a stranger any more than selling a set of knives at a yard sale is. You have no clue that the nice lady offering you 76¢ for the old set of Wüsthof is planning on using them to slice & dice her rich husband, do you? Does the guy manning the convenience store have any clue if the young man filling up a gasoline can is going to use the liquid to fuel his lawnmower or to pour over the family he has tied up in his trailer? I cannot possibly find the time to inspect the minute details of everyone’s lives who I wish to do business with, nor is it healthy for any society to automatically assume every person they interact with is guilty of some sort of crime until we can prove their innocence.
When I was in college there were all sorts of parties where alcohol was served and not everybody was 21 (Another fool law, you’re either an adult or you’re not! But again “Anti-Freedom” not “Anti-Gun”) but hey the guy buying the booze showed his ID that showed HE was 21 buying 10 cases of Milwaukee’s Best with loose bills. (And BTW at least in the parties I attended the worst that happened were some HORRIBLE hangovers)
They didn’t background check me when I bought my new camera to verify I wasn’t a child pornographer.
Blah blah blah. Of course in Massachusetts all “private” sales must be logged with the state and both participants must present a valid FID/LTC, and oddly enough the criminal still get guns.
The antis say its because Maine and New Hampshire and Vermont aren’t anti-rights dumps and the guns come from the lax laws there….except there are no numbers to support that.
No matter what you feel ethically, or morally, the laws the Antis propose don’t work at all, so if we were to impose them everywhere else…or scrap them here and everywhere that bans ACTUAL private sale, the results would be the same.
Now if we actually PUNISHED people who not only abused guns, but abused VIOLENCE, maybe THEN we’d see some results. But that’s not the point, as Sebastian Says:
As I’ve said, there are a lot of solutions one could think of that would alleviate the concerns regarding background checks, but the other side doesn’t want to speak about them. Why? Because the true purpose of what they propose has nothing to do with background checks, and never has. They are more interested in tightening the de facto registration scheme that the 4473 represents than they are in expanding background checks.
And remember registration leads to Confiscation…with “Fair Market Value” of course!