A ban on private sale is about as far from reasonable as you can get without coming round the other side of it.
No, it isn't. It's common sense. It's the only way to handicap the illegal market.
- - - Updated - - -
We already have a prolific black market, which is fueled in part by the lack of a ban on private sales. Your argument is basically that banning private sales will mean criminals will have to go to a black market instead of being able to buy their guns legally. The idea that it's better that criminals can get guns legally is mental.
- - - Updated - - -
Banning private sales doesn't ban all guns.
- - - Updated - - -
Tell me how that would stop a legitimate gun owner from getting a gun.
People that don't own a gun must be living in an alternate reality.
Great, but why should that be the case? I don't have to do that to sell a bedroom set, or a nail gun.
Thought exercise -- two widgets, Widget A and Widget B, move regularly in the stream of commerce between private owners. Widget A happens to be something that the highest law of the land explicitly recognizes citizens as having a right to own if they wish; the law is silent about Widget B. Now, let's say the government wanted to restrict the transactions by which someone could transfer either or both Widgets. Which Widget ought to be harder to restrict in ways that affect someone's opportunity to own it?
I'm not sure what a ban on private owner sales accomplishes other than to harass. Any goal of crime prevention is far too remote and tenuous to justify inconvenience for inconvenience's sake.
How rare they are depends a lot on where you live. But according to this web site http://www.homeownersinsurance.org/h...on-statistics/ I would not say they are incredibly rare. :P In some places they are fairly common. But how a person prefers to defend his home is really a personal choice as long as it is within the law. Not on how some anti-gun person feels they should.
Unregulated private sales fuel the illegal gun market. It's not complicated, or even debatable.
Having a right to own something doesn't mean the right to have that thing free of restrictions or regulations. You have a right to assemble, but that doesnt indicate a right to assemble anywhere, but that right doesnt mean you can have a parade without a permit.
And yet, here I am, debating it, pointing out that that's the kind of assertion that requires some supporting data, or at least argument. How will preventing Jack from selling Jill, legally, a firearm, create an illegal market for that or any other firearm?
No, but having a right to own something means that it necessarily should be harder to interfere with than just any other item. If it stands for anything, it stands for the idea that you can't prevent someone buying a gun legally in a way that you can't prevent them buying a car, computer, or coffee machine legally. Certainly as a constitutional law issue, it means that any particular restriction you have in mind on the transfer or ownership of the gun needs to be something the government can justify in each case -- why they want to do it and how the specific restriction is the best or only way to accomplish it.Having a right to own something doesn't mean the right to have that thing free of restrictions or regulations. You have a right to assemble, but that doesnt indicate a right to assemble anywhere, but that right doesnt mean you can have a parade without a permit.
Wouldn't work with the present number of guns in circulation. Tons of guns are smuggled across the borders every day. Esp with how lax the present administration is on border security. A lot of people will simply sell their weapon privately with cash and ignore the law. The best strategy is to enforce the laws we have for gun control, having universal background checks and severe penalties for violations.
Registration + Background checks tied to thereof would be far more effective than a ban on private sales.