[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Good luck with that. A lady on another forum I frequent who's in a pretty gun happy place mentioned that for Christmas her inlaws all got each other guns as gifts. I was shocked that was legal, but apparently it is. Only some states would ask there would be a transfer of ownership paperwork at a dealership, so there are a frighteningly large amount of firearms that could be passed around with no back checks or anything quite easily. There's also the gun show loophole that still hasn't be closed, even after Columbine.

I'm pretty sure straw purchases for firearms are not legal, if she is located in the US she admitted on an internet forum to making fraudulent statements on a Federal form. I ain't a lawyer or nothing, but

"12a. Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring
the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to
you. (See Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)" seems pretty cut and dry. If they gave each other hundreds of dollars in cash or gift certificates with which to make the purchases, then they are cool, but actually buying a glock or whatever to wrap up in a box for someone else is a no-no.

The "gun show loophole" applies to any private seller - any actual FFL still needs to do the standard background check and so forth, that just applies to sales between private individuals, for example if you decide you want to sell a gun of yours when gun-dealing is not your primary profession, and it can only be done between state residents. Out of state, it has to be conducted through an FFL. Personally I think it should have to be done through an FFL regardless.

If getting a back ground check is revolutionary, just imagine trying to get into someone's house to make sure its locked up. You think Deadman would let cops in for that?

I hear you for sure on this one, and knowing a gun nut or two, it could be a problem. A big one. I don't see an easy answer to this. Actual efforts to enforce this would have to be handled, well, diplomatically, to avoid having a siege. I just don't think doing nothing is the way to go.

Because how can you? Say someone is pretty far into the psychotic spectrum. That person is an amazing con artist. Many have been able to play psychologists, Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, got glowing reports while he was in a juvenile Diversion program from two counselors. Its fairly easy to manipulate and hide one's illnesses unless its a fairly extreme form.

It is, and I don't believe any one approach would stop everyone hell-bent on carrying out a mass killing with 100% certainty. I do think that it is possible to stop some - if you can catch them before they get set in motion. This is why I was advocating earlier for better access to mental health care - the time to stop these guys is not necessarily at the point of purchase, although I don't think it's a bad idea to do some kind of psych screening there just in case.

Not only that, but who would cover the costs of intake therapy to get a gun? Taxpayers probably wouldn't want to pay for it, and to make anyone who wants a gun pay for it is classist and would mean that only the wealthy can afford to have guns, when chances are they are the ones with the lesser need.

I'd like to see it covered by tax payers, just the like current cost for the NICS background check, the person at the counter buying a gun doesn't foot the bill for that. Of course I'd like public option health care and a pony, even though those will probably not happen. Still, raising the cost for the individual isn't the answer. The goal shouldn't be keeping guns away from poor people, it's about keeping them out of the hands of people who will misuse them. I don't want rich people or anyone else being irresponsible or malicious with a gun. Casting too wide a net is definitely a problem, you don't want to disenfranchise someone on a whim, but it's becoming more clear that not doing anything at all is not a viable strategy.