Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken
Is it an expansion if we tighten up the definition of what is "dealing"?
|
Direct answer? No. I said I had no problem with this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
That is one point but the other point is that FTF sales do not require a backgound check and therefore leave open an avenue to nuts and crooks to buy firearms they are not legally allowed to own or possess.
|
Take any example you want where FTF must go through a NICS check, the
criminal has not been stopped.
The same example is used for registration. The criminal has not been stopped.
Why add to the complexity (and number of) hoops the lawful citizen endures, when the net result is zero, as regards curtailing criminal behavior.
The largest peer reviewed study of its kind (which even admitted its anti-gun bias),
by the CDC (released Oct. 2003), concluded that firearms laws were problematic in that there was no perceivable effects on criminal behavior:
Quote:
|
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
|
Why, again, are we even entertaining this? other than for strictly political pandering?