GUN CONTROL!

[Blasveck]

Every state that does not require a background check for person to person sales.

True. I didn't go through a background check when I bought my Nagant off of my father. But, it is ridiculous to force individuals to do a background check. That is likely more expensive than the weapon they are trying to sell.

It honestly isn't that ridiculous.

[Big Jim P]

Where? Vermont, maybe. But when I lived in Arizona, one of the most pro-gun states in the Union, I had to get a background check done before buying ammo, let alone a rifle.

Every state that does not require a background check for person to person sales.

---

It is not my job to prove my innocence.

It is your job to prove that you are/will be a responsible gun owner.

Which is the default until proven otherwise.

[Imperializt Russia]

No, it isn't.

I certainly is. Private transactions are just that: Private.

Until the point at which the system is abused to intentionally pass firearms onto criminals or people generally prohibited from their ownership.

[Hathradic States]

It is your job to prove that you are/will be a responsible gun owner.

It is no more my job to prove that than it is to prove that I am not a murderer.

[Hathradic States]

True. I didn't go through a background check when I bought my Nagant off of my father. But, it is ridiculous to force individuals to do a background check. That is likely more expensive than the weapon they are trying to sell.

It honestly isn't that ridiculous.

It requires the seller to go out of their way to find personal information about a buyer. Acceptable if they are in a business selling guns, not acceptable if it is between two friends.

[Big Jim P]

I certainly is. Private transactions are just that: Private.

Until the point at which the system is abused to intentionally pass firearms onto criminals or people generally prohibited from their ownership.

That would mean BOTH parties are criminals already.

[Hathradic States]

I certainly is. Private transactions are just that: Private.

Until the point at which the system is abused to intentionally pass firearms onto criminals or people generally prohibited from their ownership.

Which is already a crime.

[Imperializt Russia]

Until the point at which the system is abused to intentionally pass firearms onto criminals or people generally prohibited from their ownership.

That would mean BOTH parties are criminals already.

And it already happens.
Worryingly widely.

[Dyakovo]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It infringes on the right of a person to conduct private sales.

There is no right to sell weapons to criminals.

[Big Jim P]

It is your job to prove that you are/will be a responsible gun owner.

It is no more my job to prove that than it is to prove that I am not a murderer.

Indeed. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies.

[Hathradic States]

Yes, it is. It infringes on the right of a person to conduct private sales.

There is no right to sell weapons to criminals.

Of course, but that is already a crime.

[Blasveck]

It honestly isn't that ridiculous.

It requires the seller to go out of their way to find personal information about a buyer. Acceptable if they are in a business selling guns, not acceptable if it is between two friends.

I guess I could agree to that.
Maybe. Though I doubt many people have murderers or violent criminals for friends, so I don't really see a problem in that.

[Big Jim P]

That would mean BOTH parties are criminals already.

And it already happens.
Worryingly widely.

How widely do you suppose?

[Dyakovo]

Every state that does not require a background check for person to person sales.

---

It is your job to prove that you are/will be a responsible gun owner.

Which is the default until proven otherwise.

Being irresponsible in the purchase or sale of a firearm is an indication of being an irresponsible gun owner.

[Dyakovo]

Until the point at which the system is abused to intentionally pass firearms onto criminals or people generally prohibited from their ownership.

That would mean BOTH parties are criminals already.

And that is exactly what you are arguing for. Allowing criminals to freely buy and sell weapons.

[Hathradic States]

It requires the seller to go out of their way to find personal information about a buyer. Acceptable if they are in a business selling guns, not acceptable if it is between two friends.

I guess I could agree to that.
Maybe. Though I doubt many people have murderers or violent criminals for friends, so I don't really see a problem in that.

99% of gun owners aren't going to sell to somebody they don't know. And if they already know that someone is a criminal, a background check won't stop them from selling to them.

[Dyakovo]

It is no more my job to prove that than it is to prove that I am not a murderer.

Indeed. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies.

No, it really doesn't.

[Imperializt Russia]

And it already happens.
Worryingly widely.

How widely do you suppose?

33-40%, from 1991 to 1997.

This is the proportion of firearms sourced from family by people who served time in state or federal prisons for firearms offences.

[Hathradic States]

That would mean BOTH parties are criminals already.

And that is exactly what you are arguing for. Allowing criminals to freely buy and sell weapons.

By not requiring background checks for person-to-person sales? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

[Big Jim P]

Which is the default until proven otherwise.

Being irresponsible in the purchase or sale of a firearm is an indication of being an irresponsible gun owner.

Already covered that:

It is no more my job to prove that than it is to prove that I am not a murderer.

Indeed. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies.

[Ifreann]

It is not my job to prove my innocence.

It is your job to prove that you are/will be a responsible gun owner.

Something which isn't necessarily related to past criminality.

---

Every state that does not require a background check for person to person sales.

---

It is your job to prove that you are/will be a responsible gun owner.

Which is the default until proven otherwise.

Utter nonsense.

---

It is no more my job to prove that than it is to prove that I am not a murderer.

Indeed. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies.

The principle of presumed innocence is for criminal trials.

[Dyakovo]

There is no right to sell weapons to criminals.

Of course, but that is already a crime.

One which you are arguing for the de facto legalization of, since you want to make sure there is no system in place to check and see if it is happening inadvertently.

[Big Jim P]

Indeed. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies.

No, it really doesn't.

Yes it does. I am not a criminal. it is the States job to prove that I am, not mine to prove that I am not.

[Dyakovo]

I guess I could agree to that.
Maybe. Though I doubt many people have murderers or violent criminals for friends, so I don't really see a problem in that.

99% of gun owners aren't going to sell to somebody they don't know. And if they already know that someone is a criminal, a background check won't stop them from selling to them.

You* knowing someone is no guarantee of you knowing whether or not they have something in their background that would prohibit them from owning a firearm.
* general you, not specific.

[Hathradic States]

Of course, but that is already a crime.

One which you are arguing for the de facto legalization of, since you want to make sure there is no system in place to check and see if it is happening inadvertently.

No, I think it should still be illegal to sell to those who can't legally own guns. Part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing who you sell to. If you don't, it is on you and you are a criminal as well.