Reply #73: Again, you're too low to the ground... [View All]

[Emoto]

...it went sailing over your head.

For those of you who may not know, what I think he is referring to is that you're not supposed to sell a gun to a prohibited person (I won't say felon because moren just felons are prohibited). But, you are not liable if you did not know that the person was prohibited (and there is no way for a private individual to do a NICS check, but there is another way to assure that a bad person doesn't get the gun that many people use).

But, you misunderstand what I said when I said "I was commenting on the assertion that "unfettered access" was a primary issue. The implication was that we ought to generalize and make decisions for the entire population based upon a single or a handful of anecdotes. I am trying to get at the bigger picture to see the trends and understand the flow. It is relevant because it is one thing if the guns used in crime are used by people who obtained them by legal means, and quite another if the guns used in crime are obtained illegally."

Again, I draw your attention to the idea of actually knowing how and where these crime guns came from before we change the law. Isn't that just plain old common sense? You are relying on assumption and conjecture to conclude that the current private sale laws are the problem. I keep asking if we have evidence. I believe that before making law that affects millions of people that we have a responsibility to base our decisions on fact, not assumption.