Guns for self-protection cause more harm than good

Google it.

 

The moon is made of green cheese. Google it

 

Since you are too lazy to look it up I will do the work for you.

What do I need to buy a gun?
Money. Optional: Nevada ID. Some buyers want to see a concealed firearm permit for their comfort, but no identification is necessary.

http://www.nevadacarry.org/buying-and-selling-guns.html

 

What you're describing is committing a criminal act, both parties are breaking the law.

The buyer is breaking the law for knowingly crossing the border and attempting to purchase a firearm.

The seller is breaking the law for unknowingly selling to a resident of another state. It is the responsibility of the person selling the firearm to verify the buyer is from the same state, and to comply with all regulations.

The only thing you've done here is show how gun laws such as these are useless, and unenforceable.

Knowing that, you seek to pass even more stupid gun control laws that are both expensive and unenforceable.

Sounds like Einstein's definition of insanity to me.

 

And according to him, he doesn't want to prosecute these people if caught because it would .... Raise Taxes.

 

That's the progressive agenda, everything is either mandatory or banned, everything is against the law, yet no one stays in jail for more than a few weeks.

 

That is factually incorrect. The seller is not required to ask for proof of residency.

 

One of reasons that the gun laws are useless is because the responsibility of the use of the gun does not fall on the purchaser at the time of purchasing from a registered dealer. Once purchased they can gift the gun which is stupid

 

Why is buying your Father his dream gun as a Birthday present stupid?

 

Or alternatively, why is buying your son a gun who then decides he prefers money, decides to sell it on to a stranger he met in a bar. All responsibility removed from the purchaser and his son

 

Because your father might be a moron who does not know how to handle guns.

 

All these actions are reasonable and responsibility for the safe handling of the firearm follows the firearm.

I don't know how you are used to selling your firearms but me and my kind exchange driver's licenses to ensure residency. If the final/most recent purchaser misbehaves with it, you'd want the initial purchaser to be held accountable? Just trying to understand your position.

 

If someone buys you a car and you decide to drink and drive should that person be held responsible?

A large part of the problem is we have laws on the books that would allow judges to throw the book at those who commit violence.....and they are not used.

I've got an even better idea!

How about when someone is let out of jail, and that person commits a crime, all of those in the decision making process are held responsible and put in jail as well.

I bet that would cut crime a lot better than your ridiculous suggestion.

 

Indeed it is not.

Because it is for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public property owned by every state in every country on the planet. That is the sole reason for the training, testing, and licensing.

The number of motor vehicle related deaths exceeds the number of deaths attributed to firearms.

Once again, how would such training being made mandatory for everyone wishing to legally exercise their constitutional rights, in any way actually achieve a reduction in the number of accidents brought on by individuals disregarding safety, and engaging in reckless behavior?

So your proposal to stop criminals from murdering others, is to mandate them acquiring training in the safe handling of firearms?

 

I'm afraid not. Its factually illegal to sell a firearm to a resident from another state.


If you sell a gun to another person from another state, and that person commits a crime with that gun, and it is traced back to you....off to jail you go.

 

It works for cars or we would not do it. Training is only one element of an effective gun control program

 

As it is currently, the few individuals seeking training classes to obtain a concealed carry permit must wait their turn for class openings to become available, and for the licensed trainers to have the time necessary to educate them. Depending on a number of circumstances this wait can be weeks or months.

If training were mandated by government, this waiting time would easily become years, as countless millions of individuals would have no choice but to wait, and hope that they do not need a firearm within the next few days. There would never be enough licensed trainers, classrooms, or shooting facilities to handle the massive influx of students seeking the ability to exercise their constitutional rights.

 

This is of course assuming that nothing ever changes which is just silly. This would be a cottage industry. No one waits very long now for driver training.

 

Then perhaps you can elaborate in exact details, precisely how making training mandatory for firearm owners, would in any way result in a reduction in the number of individuals disregarding common sense, and deliberately engaging in reckless behavior while handling a firearm.

 

In exactly the same way that accidents are reduced by drivers training. Harm reduction not harm elimination.

 

I would go one step further and give instructors the ability to assess students and the right to notify if they think a student was not stable enough to have a gun - sort of like the 9/11 suicide pilots should have sent signals about their behavior (in fact from memory I think there was a report)

 

If we eliminated Democrats then poof a totally safe country.

 

I absolutely agree

 

The states want people to drive. There would be a scarcity of "approved gun instructors" in states where legal gun ownership is discouraged, unless you believe that any NRA taught instructor would be automatically approved.

 

Peace thru dictatorship....how very....Republican

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. The federal government could ensure there is access for people in all the states.