If everyone was as responsible as you were, there wouldn’t be a problem with cameras, videocameras, and computers either. I would expect you to submit to registration of these potentially dangerous items when laws are passed requiring you to do so.
There’s no trouble at all. I’ve sold a few pistols to private individuals and bought a few pistols from private individuals. I couldn’t tell you the names of anyone I’ve bought or sold from if I tried.
If someone used a pistol I’d sold in a crime and the cops came around asking, they’d need a lot more than the fact that I used to own the gun to even arrest me, much less indict and convict me. If I hadn’t shot anyone with it I’d likely have an alibi, there would be zero physical and no circumstantial evidence pointing back to me. There would also be no motive, as I likely wouldn’t know the victim from Adam and I probably wouldn’t fit the description provided by any weapon.
To turn the question around, why should I be able to be arrested 5 years after I sold a piece of personal property because I didn’t notify the state? I had nothing to do with its criminal usage. If I’d sold a hammer and the guy I sold it to beat someone to death with it, am I liable for selling him the hammer? Once you factor the hysteria out it it, the question is no different.
I’m just saying that a paper trail that shows you no longer own the gun would be in your favor if circumstantial evidence COULD put you on the radar.
You don’t need to know someone to have motive to shoot them, by the way. And as far as your description goes, there are plenty of people in jail who were incorrectly identified as being the perpetrators of crimes.
I’d be interested to know how often any of those items are involved in a person’s death. Is it frequent enough to be a legitimate concern?
And it seems strange for you to ask for numbers when you have offered none to support your case.
I don’t support any kind of undue restrictions of the First Amendment. A similar thinking ought to apply to the Second. And the simple fact that crimes are committed from time to time in no way justifies these restrictions except those reasonable ones that are based on longstanding custom.
Actually, the objects in the cites you linked to were accessories in the deaths of those people; they didn’t cause the deaths in the same way criminal use of a firearm does, and for you to argue differently, would be a little ridiculous. Next you’ll be saying there should be restrictions on duct tape.
Moving the goal posts again, aren’t you? Cause of death wasn’t what you asked about. The objects were involved in the death just like you said.
If you mean “cause” then say “cause”.
You’re playing silly semantics games now. There are only two ways a firearm can be involved in a death, and that is to either fire it, or use it as a blunt instrument.
Have you got any cites that involves the items you mentioned being employed in the same manner?
Not true. ivan astikov was one of those prison kitties who was forced to break into peoples homes to fund his dear mothers chemotherapy because the man kept him and his family down.
Translation: Ivan used to break into peoples homes for shits’n’giggles.
Ivan has a long history of arguing against firearm ownership for private individuals because it lowers his (former?) job security.
Wasn’t aware. That changes much.
I can understand criminals not wanting to be shot - it doesn’t mean I’m going to unload.
And bringing this discussion down to a personal level helps, how?
:dubious:
That was a generalisation - like saying most old ladies fear muggers. It wasn’t aimed at anyone specifically. I doubt the majority of people are as confident about handling themselves in a confrontation, as some of the posters on here profess to be.
Only aimed at gun owners, specifically.
I’m not terribly confident on that score, myself. That’s why when a neighbor of mine was being attacked by a dog on our street, my wife called 911 while I ran for my gun.
That dog was vicious, and while it immediately broke the attack, it had to be put down a short time later by the county. I didn’t want to confront that animal without something.
Luckily everything turned out okay.
Well, who else would I be aiming it at in a thread about gun control? I’m sure there are plenty of people on here confident in their ability to handle a gun and a potential assailant, but I’ll stand by my guess that most gun owners are terrified of it happening.
I’m not sure that terrified is the correct word.
Most gun owners dread the thought of ever having to use their firearm in self defense, because most don’t want to shoot anyone.
Terror and dread? Come on, they’re not far apart! And you are talking about not wanting to shoot someone, but a weapon’s entire usefulness is based on a person perceiving an escalation in events. If your assailant, who is also likely to have a weapon, gets the drop on you, it wont matter if you had Tom Knapp with you.
And you wonder why things like Castle Doctrines are acceptable in the United States?
Taken from good old Wikipedia!
This doesn’t fill me with much confidence and I’ve not reached the contents yet. Should I continue reading?