Or rather “The current laws are weak and ineffectual, thus obviously we need stronger and more comprehensive ones.”
There is no such law. In fact, private sellers cannot do background checks if they wanted to. The solution isn’t to ban private sales, it’s to allow private sellers to perform background checks if they wish.
Certainly it shouldn’t be mandatory. If I want to give my son a rifle for his birthday, I personally know him and his (lack of) criminal background, as well as what state he resides in, what training he has, and a fairly good idea of his mental health. If I want to sell my gun to a stranger on Craigslist however, I would appreciate having the means to verify he can legally purchase it. What I shouldn’t have to do is pay some third party to get involved for no reason.
This is silly. For one, a knife is not going to deter anyone with a gun. Might as well bring a spoon. Two, your grandma with a knife is about as frightening as your grandma with a glass of milk. On the other hand, your grandma with a gun is about equally frightening as a young Arnold Schwarzenegger with a gun. In other words, guns are the great equalizer.
There are a lot of physically weak, frail, disabled or chronically ill people who should have the means to defend themselves, because overpowering strong attackers with their hands (with or without a knife) is not a realistic option for them.
If knives are just as good at defending people as a gun, why wouldn’t police, non-infantry soldiers, the secret service, bodyguards and other security personnel just carry knives and save their employers a lot of money that way?
Yes, most of them. Even if you are a strict law&order type, you have to admit that possessing contraband, engaging in moving violations or failing to file certain paperwork (among other non-violent infractions) is an entirely different category of “crime” than murder, rape, assault/battery, kidnapping, arson and theft. In my opinion, only the latter group should be called “criminals”.
Near as I can tell giving a gun as a gift is governed by the same laws as selling a gun. So in some states such as California you would need to transfer the gun to your son via someone with an FFL and have a background check done.
Also, unless you formally transfer legal ownership of the gun to the other person (as opposed to just handing it to them and walking away) the gun is legally deemed to be your gun. Which is to say if that person does something bad with the gun you gave them and you are on file as the current owner you could find you have some liability for whatever happened (not sure about criminal but certainly civil).
The NRA suggests the best way to gift someone a gun is to take them to the gun store and have them make the purchase (you give them the money of course).
You don’t even have to ask.
Your minor son, or your adult son? I’d agree on the former, not the latter. There are parents who do not know what their children are up to that give them guns with which they go out and commit crimes. Minors are also in a different class, often not able to purchase such things on their own. Once you are able to purchase a gun on your own by age, you should also be able to prove that you are eligible by background.
What means would you use to verify that your buyer on craigslist can purchase it that doesn’t involve a third party?
Personally, my proposal on the matter is that if the have a CCW or other means of proving that they have already passed a background check to the satisfaction of an FFL, then you can in good conscience sell them the gun. If they haven’t then you should go through an FFL, or tell them to get their own verified background check before the sale can proceed.
Maybe, maybe not. People don’t like being stabbed, it sucks. In any case, if a major reason that you need a gun is because you are worried that the criminals have a gun, wouldn’t it make sense to enact laws that prevent criminals from getting guns?
Yeah, my grandma with a gun would be terrifying, similar to Schwarzenegger in his movies where everyone around him dies. The one thing I can pretty much guarantee she will not hit is the intruder.
Then if they have a clean background, then they should be able to buy a gun with which to defend themselves.
Largely because the criminals that they would encounter have guns. Also, because these groups need to have more power than those they confront, they are not looking for a fair fight.
If you look at the police force of many countries that do not have as many guns in society as we do, most of them do not carry guns on a regular basis.
I would disagree with that. There are many things that you can do that are non-violent that are still just as criminal as what you consider to be criminal. Possession of nuclear materials, driving recklessly while intoxicated, or refusing to file certain types of paperwork can cause serious disruptions to society.
Do you consider white collar criminals, embezzlers, tax cheats, and insider traders to be “criminals”?
Nobody should be looking for a fair fight. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you screwed up. People shouldn’t go looking for fights at all, but if you find yourself in one anyway, you’d better ensure your opponent is massively outmatched. In particular, by being armed if facing a strong or knife-wielding opponent, and by having armed backup if you face a loner with a gun. These aren’t things you can guarantee at all times, but they should within reach of civilians as well as the police.
Are you saying only police should have weapons in order to avoid fair fights, while the rest of us should merely be evenly matched against attackers who want to kill or disable us? Are you saying only police encounter armed criminals?
Yes. That would fall under “theft”.
Yeah, that’s what I said.
Yeah, but it would be great if they were not in as easy a reach for criminals.
No, but if criminals didn’t have as easy access to guns, then it would be much easier for a civilian to overpower the criminal, rather than just getting shot.
No. (Though they are the only ones that should go looking for them.)
With some caveats, intrafamilial transfer in CA does not require an FFL (question 5). Only a form and fee that can be submitted by mail.