[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"

On 2013-09-19 11:03:39 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:56:02 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

The big issue and loophole in the background checks is the mental
health question. The majority of firearms in the USA are not used in
crime or insane shootings, but are owned by mostly responsible, law
abiding citizens. Even drug addled criminals armed with illegally
obtained guns, aren't crazy enough to shoot up a school, movie house,
or military establishment.

It's very popular to center on the mental health question. The
problem is that a person suffering from a mental health issue is not
necessarily a danger to society and it is extremely difficult to
determine if a mental health condition is of the type that points to
that person being a danger to society.

It is popular to center on the mental health issue because the vast
majority of unexplainable mass shootings are rooted in mental health
issues.
Other gun related crimes not so much.

To effect any changes based on mental health, you have to decide who
is in a position to determine another person's mental health, and you
have to have some way of knowing who has a mental health problem.

They exist and are consulted. However, there are too many in need of
help who slip through the cracks and never see, or you as you have
pointed out avoid mental health professionals until there is an
unavoidable even which precipitates a mental health review. That should
be documented and present a flag during a background check, or result
in the confiscation or transfer of guns bought & registered prior to
the discovery of the problem, or felony conviction, or placement of a
restraining order.

The solution to this is to have everyone who wants to buy a gun to be
subjected to a mental health examination. Who would want that?
That would mean that you, Duck, would have to subject yourself to a
mental health examination to buy another gun or extend your current
permits. Is that something you'd find acceptable? I wouldn't.

Certainly not something that should be applied generally, and not
something I would particularly favor.

You'll remember the trumped-up claims and furor about a "Death panel".
Imagine that times a thousand if we'd try to establish "Sanity
panels".

I am not going down that road.

As far as I'm concerned, that's grabbing the wrong end of the stick.
The other end, the availability of guns, is the end where the most
good can be accomplished.

However, there are already availability restrictions depending on the
State, County, or municipal jurisdiction you live in, and the Feds
(ATF) don't seem to want to involve themselves in that State's Rights
thing.

I'm not at all against gun ownership. What I support is more
stringent requirements on how guns are purchased and from whom, more
stringent requirements on who can carry guns in non-hunting
conditions, and tougher penalties for irresponsible gun ownership.

....and it is just that which the California laws address.

If your gun is stolen from your car, I think you are in the wrong just
as much as the person stealing the gun if you didn't secure that gun
sufficiently. If you had it in a locked gun safe secured to the
vehicle, you get a pass. If it's loose in the trunk, you get a stiff
fine.

Agreed.

Until mental health professionals are able to file a report indicating
they believe a patient has stability issue and/or violent tendencies,
and the various State law enforcement agencies are able to make a gun
ownership check against a database, and act on that knowledge.

The majority, the overwhelming majority, of people with mental health
problems never see a mental health professional. It's only when they
go off the rails that they see someone, and often not by their choice.

....and that is an opportunity to conduct a cross check.
The analogy I can think of and address personally, is when in
California an individual loses consciousness due to brain trauma. When
my wife had her brain haemorrhage and was unconscious in ICU for some
time. The neurologist treating her was compelled by law to advise the
California DMV, and my wife's driving privilege was suspended until she
could pass a driving proficiency test. She was never able to pass that
test, and for the last five years of her life lost the freedom to
drive. It was a loss she felt deeply.

There is no reason mental health professionals should not be compelled
to advise the DOJ when an issue disqualifying gun ownership arises with
a mental health patient.

As I said above, if you really think that mental health should be the
determining factor in purchasing a gun, then you have to have every
potential purchaser of a gun screened by a mental health professional.
Wal-Mart would be selling guns on Aisle 6, but first the person would
have to stop by the Mental Health Screening booth.

Not "the determining factor", but a determining factor.

While a ludicrous idea, it would at least help the unemployment
figures. There would be a sudden demand for mental health
professionals. Instead of going to one of those schools for truck
drivers or barbers, people would be going to a permit mill for mental
health "professionals".



As has been pointed out, the DC shooter, the Colorado movie house
shooter, the Newtown school shooter, the Giffords Arizona shooter, all
had profound undocumented mental health issues and were able to sail
through the background checks. The DC shooter was even able to avoid
disqualification even though he was involved in two prior shooting
incidents where he showed irrational behavior.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/19/2013 3:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip



There is no reason mental health professionals should not be compelled
to advise the DOJ when an issue disqualifying gun ownership arises with
a mental health patient.


I would be concerned about the reporting issue, without an adequate review.
Do you recall the day care people who gave erroneous reports of children
being beaten.
OTOH, if a mental health professional fails to make a proper diagnosis,
and his patient shoots some people, does he have financial
responsibility? Can this lead to a weighted diagnosis?
No! it is not that simple a question, on the borderline cases.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

I really don't see why you're trying to "discuss" these things with Tony
to begin with... He can never be wrong, didn't you know that?

You will not even concede that Tony Cooper may be on the moral side of
an argument.

Huh? "moral"? What does that have to do with anything?

As observed in that article, there is something morally wrong when
people claim there is a right to gun ownership, but consulting with a
mental health professional is a privilege. A mutual obligation to aid
and protect our fellow humans, is a basic morality.

We're not talking about the same thing, Peter. Clarke asked Tony a
question, Tony squirmed away from answering it post upon post probably
because he realized the scenario he had put forward was impossible in
the actual real world.

I am for gun control. Or rather, I'm against guns, full stop. This has
nothing to do with Tony's inability to admit to a mistake or realize
that he is way over his head in a "debate".


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-09-19 12:35:19 -0700, PeterN said:

On 9/19/2013 3:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip



There is no reason mental health professionals should not be compelled
to advise the DOJ when an issue disqualifying gun ownership arises with
a mental health patient.


I would be concerned about the reporting issue, without an adequate review.
Do you recall the day care people who gave erroneous reports of
children being beaten.
OTOH, if a mental health professional fails to make a proper diagnosis,
and his patient shoots some people, does he have financial
responsibility? Can this lead to a weighted diagnosis?
No! it is not that simple a question, on the borderline cases.

Agreed, but then why even make a history of mental health issues a
disqualifying factor?
Where do you draw the line? Do you only document those who have been
admitted for psychological observation? Those who hear voices? Those on
psychotropic meds?
On some meds you are advised not to operate heavy machinery, or drive.
So, why not restrict firearm use in combination with some meds. Then
there is the great combination, alcohol and guns.

So, why not a suspension of gun ownership rights when reported. The
suspension subject to appeal and review by an appropriate panel?

The point is, a history of mental health disorders is a disqualifying
factor in gun purchase background checks, but there doesn't seem to be
a way of enforcing that part of the check. Note, the shooters in DC,
Newtown, Arizona, and Colorado, all had/have mental health issues and
all used legally purchased guns.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/19/2013 3:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-09-19 12:35:19 -0700, PeterN said:

On 9/19/2013 3:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip



There is no reason mental health professionals should not be compelled
to advise the DOJ when an issue disqualifying gun ownership arises with
a mental health patient.


I would be concerned about the reporting issue, without an adequate
review.
Do you recall the day care people who gave erroneous reports of
children being beaten.
OTOH, if a mental health professional fails to make a proper
diagnosis, and his patient shoots some people, does he have financial
responsibility? Can this lead to a weighted diagnosis?
No! it is not that simple a question, on the borderline cases.

Agreed, but then why even make a history of mental health issues a
disqualifying factor?
Where do you draw the line? Do you only document those who have been
admitted for psychological observation? Those who hear voices? Those on
psychotropic meds?
On some meds you are advised not to operate heavy machinery, or drive.
So, why not restrict firearm use in combination with some meds. Then
there is the great combination, alcohol and guns.

So, why not a suspension of gun ownership rights when reported. The
suspension subject to appeal and review by an appropriate panel?

The point is, a history of mental health disorders is a disqualifying
factor in gun purchase background checks, but there doesn't seem to be a
way of enforcing that part of the check. Note, the shooters in DC,
Newtown, Arizona, and Colorado, all had/have mental health issues and
all used legally purchased guns.


I am not against mental health screening as a condition for gun
ownership. There is always the Mason-Dixon issue. (Where do we draw the
line.) I thought you were over simplifying the issue.



--
PeterN

On 9/19/2013 3:49 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

I really don't see why you're trying to "discuss" these things with Tony
to begin with... He can never be wrong, didn't you know that?

You will not even concede that Tony Cooper may be on the moral side of
an argument.

Huh? "moral"? What does that have to do with anything?

As observed in that article, there is something morally wrong when
people claim there is a right to gun ownership, but consulting with a
mental health professional is a privilege. A mutual obligation to aid
and protect our fellow humans, is a basic morality.

We're not talking about the same thing, Peter. Clarke asked Tony a
question, Tony squirmed away from answering it post upon post probably
because he realized the scenario he had put forward was impossible in
the actual real world.

I am for gun control. Or rather, I'm against guns, full stop. This has
nothing to do with Tony's inability to admit to a mistake or realize
that he is way over his head in a "debate".

Sorry, I think you have got an anti Tony bias in your head, to the
extent that you can't agree with anything he says. To my way of thinking
what is said is more important than who says it. There are lots of
things I don't agree on with tony, but, I would really enjoy a face to
face meeting with him, as I would with most of the folks around here.
There is one guy who I know from another group. He and I are politically
and philosophically, polar opposites. Yet we have met several times,
some planned, some because of our common interest in photography. Give
li a chance, you may be pleasantly surprised.


--
PeterN

On 2013-09-19 16:04:09 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:49:10 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

I really don't see why you're trying to "discuss" these things with Tony
to begin with... He can never be wrong, didn't you know that?

You will not even concede that Tony Cooper may be on the moral side of
an argument.

Huh? "moral"? What does that have to do with anything?

As observed in that article, there is something morally wrong when
people claim there is a right to gun ownership, but consulting with a
mental health professional is a privilege. A mutual obligation to aid
and protect our fellow humans, is a basic morality.

We're not talking about the same thing, Peter. Clarke asked Tony a
question, Tony squirmed away from answering it post upon post probably
because he realized the scenario he had put forward was impossible in
the actual real world.

I am for gun control. Or rather, I'm against guns, full stop. This has
nothing to do with Tony's inability to admit to a mistake or realize
that he is way over his head in a "debate".

What question didn't I answer? What mistake? What's impossible about
requiring gun sales to be through authorized gun dealers?

Nothing.
As I said to J. Clark, California already has that provision for legal
private sales of firearms. The two parties have to use a California
licensed firearms dealer to facilitate the transaction, file the
registration data with the DOJ, and hold the weapon while the ten day
waiting period & background check are completed.
For those side stepping the law there are no gun controls anywhere.

"It is illegal for any person who is not a California licensed firearms
dealer (private party) to sell or transfer a firearm to another
non-licensed person (private party) unless the sale is completed
through a licensed California firearms dealer. A “Private Party
Transfer� (PPT) can be conducted at any licensed California firearms
dealership that sells handguns. The buyer and seller must complete the
required DROS document in person at the licensed firearms dealership
and deliver the firearm to the dealer who will retain possession of the
firearm during the mandatory 10-day waiting period. In addition to the
applicable state fees, the firearms dealer may charge a fee not to
exceed $10 per firearm for conducting the PPT."

Interesting, since Jonas has me killfiled and doesn't read my posts,
that he says I didn't answer. How does he know what my replies were?

He is not going to acknowledge that he has seen, or read anything you
have written, even if it is part of the thread quotes.

Think maybe Jonas is making **** up?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:09:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-09-19 03:18:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:40:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:28:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do?

Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any
medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. We
already have restrictions in place on advertisers that the medium must
observe. We require certain contractors to have a license number to
advertise. We require sellers of automobiles who are dealers to
reveal that they are dealers. There are many other restrictions in
place.

Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist?

What rules? No rules exist today. There should be rules, but no
rules will ever be put into effect in Florida. The NRA owns the
Florida legislature. This is the state that tried to pass a law that
a pediatrician should be fined $1 million - that's no typo - for
initiating any discussion with a patient or patient's family about gun
safety practices in the home...the "Docs and Glocks" law that was
struck down by the courts.

This is also the state that passed legislation that forbade cities
from passing any local ordinances regarding gun control. No city in
Florida can pass a local ordinance banning the carrying - open or
concealed - a weapon in a children's park or school. Any gun law must
be a state law.

How
about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for
advertising that are not subject to editorial control.

All I'm advocating is that *some* reasonable restrictions on the sale
of guns should be imposed. There is no anticipation that all avenues
can - or should be - closed. I think it's reasonable to ban gun sales
at flea markets where anyone can walk up and purchase any weapon of
any kind. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to ban, by law,
that "Grandma" can't sell her deceased husband's handgun to a friend
or relative.

And, by the way, I would exempt collector items like this one:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...6-21-07-XL.jpg
I

inherited it from my father, but have since given it to my daughter.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

Your argument is that Grandma selling something on Craigslist is
dangerous for Grandma. Now it is up to you to explain why selling a
firearm on Craigslist is more dangerous to Grandma than selling a camera
or a bicycle or a fishing rod.

Up to me? All it takes is a modicum of common sense to understand why
advertising the fact that you have a gun for sale can attract people
who would not respond to an ad for a camera or a fishing rod.
Craigslist has a search option, and the bad guys aren't searching for
"Nikon" or "Daiwa".

I see. So the only people who might want to buy a gun are criminals.
Gotcha.

Nothing about the suggestion prohibits anyone from selling or buying a
gun. All it does is impose a restriction on where the gun is bought
or sold. Guns could still be sold through or to, and bought from,
authorized sellers that follow the laws.

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

What has he written that made you write that last sentence?

Are you blind, just stubborn, or injecting yourself into a thread
regarding opinions on US gun control which has nothing to do with
Swedes?

Just read the thread rather than ask what Tony has written. It appears
in the line above the comment you are asking about.
Your request makes you appear like a petulant girl refusing to speak to
somebody standing right next to her and using an intermediary to
conduct a conversation.
"I'm not speaking to him, so you tell me what he said, and I'll tell
you what I want him to hear."

Sheeesh!

Are you responding to me, or do you think you are responding to
Sandman?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-09-19 16:50:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:09:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-09-19 03:18:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:40:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:28:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do?

Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any
medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. We
already have restrictions in place on advertisers that the medium must
observe. We require certain contractors to have a license number to
advertise. We require sellers of automobiles who are dealers to
reveal that they are dealers. There are many other restrictions in
place.

Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist?

What rules? No rules exist today. There should be rules, but no
rules will ever be put into effect in Florida. The NRA owns the
Florida legislature. This is the state that tried to pass a law that
a pediatrician should be fined $1 million - that's no typo - for
initiating any discussion with a patient or patient's family about gun
safety practices in the home...the "Docs and Glocks" law that was
struck down by the courts.

This is also the state that passed legislation that forbade cities
from passing any local ordinances regarding gun control. No city in
Florida can pass a local ordinance banning the carrying - open or
concealed - a weapon in a children's park or school. Any gun law must
be a state law.

How
about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for
advertising that are not subject to editorial control.

All I'm advocating is that *some* reasonable restrictions on the sale
of guns should be imposed. There is no anticipation that all avenues
can - or should be - closed. I think it's reasonable to ban gun sales
at flea markets where anyone can walk up and purchase any weapon of
any kind. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to ban, by law,
that "Grandma" can't sell her deceased husband's handgun to a friend
or relative.

And, by the way, I would exempt collector items like this one:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...6-21-07-XL.jpg
I

inherited

it from my father, but have since given it to my daughter.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

Your argument is that Grandma selling something on Craigslist is
dangerous for Grandma. Now it is up to you to explain why selling a
firearm on Craigslist is more dangerous to Grandma than selling a camera
or a bicycle or a fishing rod.

Up to me? All it takes is a modicum of common sense to understand why
advertising the fact that you have a gun for sale can attract people
who would not respond to an ad for a camera or a fishing rod.
Craigslist has a search option, and the bad guys aren't searching for
"Nikon" or "Daiwa".

I see. So the only people who might want to buy a gun are criminals.
Gotcha.

Nothing about the suggestion prohibits anyone from selling or buying a
gun. All it does is impose a restriction on where the gun is bought
or sold. Guns could still be sold through or to, and bought from,
authorized sellers that follow the laws.

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

What has he written that made you write that last sentence?

Are you blind, just stubborn, or injecting yourself into a thread
regarding opinions on US gun control which has nothing to do with
Swedes?

Just read the thread rather than ask what Tony has written. It appears
in the line above the comment you are asking about.
Your request makes you appear like a petulant girl refusing to speak to
somebody standing right next to her and using an intermediary to
conduct a conversation.
"I'm not speaking to him, so you tell me what he said, and I'll tell
you what I want him to hear."

Sheeesh!

Are you responding to me, or do you think you are responding to
Sandman?

Tony C already called me on my attribution goof. My apologies sir.
Tunnel vision took over. ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:33:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-09-19 16:50:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:09:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-09-19 03:18:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:40:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:28:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do?

Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any
medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. We
already have restrictions in place on advertisers that the medium must
observe. We require certain contractors to have a license number to
advertise. We require sellers of automobiles who are dealers to
reveal that they are dealers. There are many other restrictions in
place.

Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist?

What rules? No rules exist today. There should be rules, but no
rules will ever be put into effect in Florida. The NRA owns the
Florida legislature. This is the state that tried to pass a law that
a pediatrician should be fined $1 million - that's no typo - for
initiating any discussion with a patient or patient's family about gun
safety practices in the home...the "Docs and Glocks" law that was
struck down by the courts.

This is also the state that passed legislation that forbade cities
from passing any local ordinances regarding gun control. No city in
Florida can pass a local ordinance banning the carrying - open or
concealed - a weapon in a children's park or school. Any gun law must
be a state law.

How
about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for
advertising that are not subject to editorial control.

All I'm advocating is that *some* reasonable restrictions on the sale
of guns should be imposed. There is no anticipation that all avenues
can - or should be - closed. I think it's reasonable to ban gun sales
at flea markets where anyone can walk up and purchase any weapon of
any kind. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to ban, by law,
that "Grandma" can't sell her deceased husband's handgun to a friend
or relative.

And, by the way, I would exempt collector items like this one:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...6-21-07-XL.jpg
I

inherited

it from my father, but have since given it to my daughter.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

Your argument is that Grandma selling something on Craigslist is
dangerous for Grandma. Now it is up to you to explain why selling a
firearm on Craigslist is more dangerous to Grandma than selling a camera
or a bicycle or a fishing rod.

Up to me? All it takes is a modicum of common sense to understand why
advertising the fact that you have a gun for sale can attract people
who would not respond to an ad for a camera or a fishing rod.
Craigslist has a search option, and the bad guys aren't searching for
"Nikon" or "Daiwa".

I see. So the only people who might want to buy a gun are criminals.
Gotcha.

Nothing about the suggestion prohibits anyone from selling or buying a
gun. All it does is impose a restriction on where the gun is bought
or sold. Guns could still be sold through or to, and bought from,
authorized sellers that follow the laws.

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

What has he written that made you write that last sentence?

Are you blind, just stubborn, or injecting yourself into a thread
regarding opinions on US gun control which has nothing to do with
Swedes?

Just read the thread rather than ask what Tony has written. It appears
in the line above the comment you are asking about.
Your request makes you appear like a petulant girl refusing to speak to
somebody standing right next to her and using an intermediary to
conduct a conversation.
"I'm not speaking to him, so you tell me what he said, and I'll tell
you what I want him to hear."

Sheeesh!

Are you responding to me, or do you think you are responding to
Sandman?

Tony C already called me on my attribution goof. My apologies sir.
Tunnel vision took over. ;-)

Were you too busy looking through the eye-piece at the time?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens