The current design of the 'armslist' web site makes it easier than it should be to make an illegal gun purchase. The complaint and suggested resolution seem legitimate.

No it isn't.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person's own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Q: May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser's own State?

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]

They have a case against the Washington state dealer not the website operator.

You want a gun...you can buy one. Whether there is a broker involved or not.

Guns don't kill people...people kill people. cliche I know...but it's the truth.

Aw, c'mon Joe, it's not that bad.

Guns don't kill people...people kill people.

No one ever said that a gun, all by itself, killed anyone. Just about everyone knows that people kill. And, their favorite thing to kill with is a gun, or more specifically, a hand gun. Just like this poor woman was killed.

Scroll up a little Joe and look at her picture. Not a bad looking woman, eh? She's got a nice smile.

So, in this situation, a good looking woman is dead because lots of folks want it to be very easy to get a hand gun.

No she is dead because one nut job found a seller that was willing to break the law.

A nut job got a hand gun from another nut job?

Are you saying that it is easy for a nut job to get a hand gun?

What is your definition of nut job?

That's right Joe guns don't kill people, but people with guns do, can and will kill people. So in order for that to stop we need to take the guns out of the hands of people who will kill with their gun! Yes knives, bottles, and any other object can be used to kill. But sometimes people who are being threatened can escape harm or death but no one can run faster than a bullet!

NoMoreTax

Automobile makers should be sued for hit and runs.

Yet another moronic and irrational comment from an advocate of gun ownership without responsibility.

If you really want to compare guns and automobiles why not take the rational step of requiring gun owners to go through at least the same level of scrutiny as would be required for a driver's license?

Would that be too much responsibility for you?

Joe R

Guns don't kill people...people kill people. cliche I know...but it's the truth.

Here's future cliche ..... the internet doesn't kill people, people kill people. It might just catch on with the gun crowd and it is as stupid as your cliche.

don, gun owners go through federal and state background checks in order to purchase a firearm. In Massachusetts for example we have a system known as MIRCS that is an instant check when purchasing a firearm in addition to federal background checks. Felons can not puchase a firearm however they can purchase a car...

When you under stand the current laws feel free to come back and debate them but until then your opinion is useless.

I do NOT support the ability to purchase a firearm over the internet. I am a gun owning law abiding citizen and will fight tooth and nail for my right to own a gun, but I must say having the ability to buy one over the internet is idiotic.

Sure, just as you need a pistol to commute to work daily, right??? Screw gun wackos, they are making our society unlivable. You cant even go to your local mall to shop for Christmas without a wacko showing up with an assault rifle. This has gotten waaaay beyond bad.

Felons can not puchase a firearm however they can purchase a car...

I think you missed the point. To operate a motor vehicle, you need a license, registration, and insurance. These things help to ensure that we all use our cars correctly and to help defer costs in the event that there is an accident. There is no equilvalent system for hand guns, or guns of any kind.

The NRA may strongly recommend training, but they would not make such training a requirement to gun ownership.

Sorry davey looks like you missed the point. Don suggested scrutiny, which implies a background check is not completed it is. What you are suggesting are in fact infringements... I think I have heard that term somewhere... And as a side note many states do require licenses and almost all do for Concealed carry. I have my CC license here in MA for instance.

dennis

"Scrutiny" implies a lot of things. Background checks is part of it. How about some training that makes it very clear to any gun owner that shooting another human being is only justified when another human life is actually in danger? Protecting one's property is justification for calling the police, not for shooting to kill.

How about making the license to operate a firearm non-transferable, just like a driver's license? That means you cannot transfer a gun to a person who does not go through the licensing process.

don, gun licenses are non nontransferable is that a serious comment? You cannot legally tranfser a gun (in MA) to an unlicensed individual. However no I do not have to conduct a background check on someone if I decide to sell my firearm in fact I am not allowed to I do have property rights tho and one of those rights of property is to sell what is yours.

I agree protecting property is not a reason to shoot someone and in almost all cases a shooting only surrounding property will end up with a gun owner in Jail. That changes when a person has broken into someones home if someone is illegally in your home you have every reason to anticipate bodily harm and take steps to stop the threat, steps that include lethal force.

To get a driver's license, you must pass a written test and a driving test. What did you have to do, what proficiencies did you demonstrate, to get your CC license?

In MA you must take an 8 hour class (pass it) and following that fill out information with the police. That being said driving is not a right explicitly laid out, the right to bear arms is distinctly and purposely laid out within our constitution, being forced to take a class to exercise your rights are in fact outright unconstitutional. This is slowly being demonstrated by court ruling increasing citizens rights to carry infact the Illinois conceal carry ban was just ruled unconstitutional and they have 179 days (the ruling was yesterday) to set up laws allowing CC if they do not set up said laws Illinois will become Constitutional carry meaning citizens will need no license at all.. At the end of the day Chicago was already the most dangerous city in the world with Americas most restrictive gun laws I look forward to viewing the change and the right of Chicagoans to defend themselves.

"Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has

a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter."

Judge Richard Posner's opinion following the Ruling declaring the Illinois Carry ban unconstitutional.Yesterday 12/11/12.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-court-ruling-on-illinois-concealed-carry-ban-sets-stage-for-appeal-legislative-battle/2012/12/12/75f3eaa0-4433-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html

I understand the 2A, and how the courts have interpreted it.

But the 2A bugs a lot of people. I consider it a catastrophe for the United States.

Dude, let's say that you walked into a mall, and all of a sudden, you hear gun shots. All hell breaking loose. You don't know what is going on. Then, you see him, a guy with a gun, a hand gun let's say, but before you see him, he saw you. He is pointing his gun at you. You see him pull the trigger. You know that you are going to die. In that second before you die, do you think that you would rethink your support for the 2A?

He could have killed her with a knife, but a gun is preferred because most people don't carry one, so its an advantage. Would she be alive if he had been unable to get a gun? probably not.

If there is a lesson here its not about gun control, its about being careful who you date.

The primary function of an automobile is to provide transportation. When operated incorrectly, a car can kill someone. The primary function of a handgun is to kill people. When operated correctly, it can kill someone. Yeah, those are exactly the same.

Dennis, are people safer with or without a gun? Do you have any stats for that?

Do gun owners live longer?

Sorry Davey I do not have any stats off of the top of my head, I am sure they are available. I am sure the life expectancy is about the same. I certainly do not own my firearms expecting to use them there is much sport, investment and collecting to be done with firearms I am however prepared to. If you think the police are available to protect you they are in fact not. As laid out in a recent court case Warren V District of Columbia, you are on your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

I know that I am on my own. I am not complaining or asking for special treatment. And, I protect myself and my family in many ways. But not with guns. I don't have one and I won't have one. Too risky, especially with kids.

But this gun argument fascinates the hell out of me. I've come to the conclusions that hand guns are a net negative in our society. Yes, you have sport with them. But a lot of people have them for protection.

But do they protect you? Are you safer with them or without them? Seems to me that if you cannot demonstrate that you are safer with guns than without, and if you keep guns for protection, well, you have not made a sound decision.

Doesn't the NRA have any data that shows you to be safer with guns than without? I mean, if you can demonstrate that guns make you safer, then I'm gonna get me a gun, because I want to be safe.

This woman is not dead because of the web site or the gun owner who sold the gun, she is dead because of an unstable ex-boyfriend. The gun owner in Washington broke the law and has paid the price for it. The murderer is in prison and paying the price for his actions. The web site operator did nothing illegal and was operating in accordance with the law, even including in its terms of service that the users of the site are responsible for following all state and federal laws regarding sales of weapons. This suit never should have been brought and will almost definitely fail. The fact that the anti-gun Brady Center is involved in this speaks volumes about the political nature of this case being brought. Hold the true criminal responsible and stop trying to blame everyone you can find when something happens.

sorry like I said I do not have the stat I have heard there is correlation to initiating CCW laws and decreases in crime but crime overall has been decreasing as we have seen an increase in gun ownership. Yes correlation does not imply causality but there is certainly something there.

Perhaps you feel confident defending your family with just what you have on hand/ your hands but I do not. My firearms are securely locked but available at a moments notice in order to ensure they are both safe and readily available for me to defend my self and my family.

Edit: JS makes a great point 100% agree

The fact that the anti-gun Brady Center is involved in this speaks volumes about the political nature of this case being brought.

Do you think maybe if you got shot you would be against guns?

My guess is he would be against getting shot but fortunately we already have laws for that

Edit: Maybe also against releasing dangerous people from jail that have presented themselves as a threat to others.

Just one thing to say: THE 2A DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO KILL ANYONE. Why is it so hard for the progressives/ liberals to understand that very simple fact. If you outlaw guns, take every gun from everyone no guns at all do you really believe that people will stop killing? do you believe that the idiot that wants to kill as many people as possible will not just go use a car, a sword, ect? I could go into a club with a sword and kill several people before anyone could stop me(I have no desire to kill anyone this is just an example for you morons out there). At that point what do we ban next, what is the next step? I will let you in on a little secret let the crime decide the punishment, KILL those that kill. Once the trial is over take them out and KILL them, trust me crime will go down. Put the responsibility on the person who commits the crime not the gun.

My guess is he would be against getting shot but fortunately we already have laws for that

Dennis, you are getting sloppy. Maybe time to step away from the keyboard? Of course he does not want to get shot. No one wants to get shot. Duh!!!

THE 2A DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO KILL ANYONE

Thank you rmc, that is the missing piece of the puzzle. All is now clear.

Put the responsibility on the person who commits the crime not the gun.

The person who commits the crime is the one responsible. In case you have not noticed, you hardly ever see a gun charged with murder. hm?

But, and here's the tricky part, in my humble opinion, guns, especially hand guns, are not innocent bystanders in all these murders. They are, in fact, the #1 way that we commit murder in the US.

trust me

Do you trust me?

OK, you have your opinion. You say, keep making guns available and when someone kills with a gun, punish them. Well, we already do that. I think that is a good way to run a country, if you want a lot of murders.

Hey rmc, do guns make people safer than if they did not have guns? If yes, how do you know that?

Up too late and little sleep last night, gf had the stomach bug, time for me to sign off. Good speaking with you, you were not an unreasonable debater like many can be.

Davey, the current punishment for violent crimes with a gun are simply life in prison if that, do not be fooled that is not punishment. What is not clear to you is that the person committing that crime with the gun does not consider that punishment, it is a rite of passage to some and those that are crazy don't care what the punishment is. I understand you feel that removing guns will solve this problem and yes if you remove all guns then yes gun crime is non existent, but again what you fail to understand is that person WILL find a way to kill. So the question I have for you is this "what is it you will ban next"? As far as trusting you I have no doubt you are a good person and you believe what you say, I feel you just don't have a grasp on the situation.

If a person kills with a gun and it is not self defense kill them, if you rape someone castrate them, steal something, drive drunk flog them sounds cruel? just do it and watch crime go down.

It has been fun but I must go to bed, work tomorrow, have a good evening. Merry Christmas to everyone

The last time I looked it was illegal to ship a gun any where, across state lines or across town to any one but yourself or a licensed gun dealer, in order to transfer ownership.

Did I miss something?

"what is it you will ban next"?

I haven't suggested banning anything.

What is not clear to you is that the person committing that crime with the gun does not consider that punishment, it is a rite of passage to some and those that are crazy don't care what the punishment is.

OK, punishment does not matter.

If a person kills with a gun and it is not self defense kill them, if you rape someone castrate them, steal something, drive drunk flog them sounds cruel? just do it and watch crime go down.

Now punishment matters?

I understand you feel that removing guns will solve this problem and yes if you remove all guns then yes gun crime is non existent, but again what you fail to understand is that person WILL find a way to kill.

Maybe, maybe not. If you remove the easy way, some people will not find a way. They just won't do it. My analogy is going to Paris from New York. If you had to go from Paris to New York, you would buy a ticket on a commercial airline. If there were no airplanes, you probably would not travel between New York and Paris. Airplanes make it easy to go from Paris to New York. So, lots of people do that. Take away airplanes, not so many people will travel between New York and Paris. Take away guns, or reduce the number of guns, and there will be fewer murders.

Automobile manufacturers are are sued all the time, Einstein....

• NOW sue the IRRESPONSIBLE NRA for irresponsibly promoting guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Victims and families of mass shootings SHOULD sue the NRA

S U E T H E N R A ! !

davey-526272To get a driver's license, you must pass a written test and a driving test.

The bar on that is set very high isn't it? How many traffic fatalities were there last year?

What did you have to do, what proficiencies did you demonstrate, to get your CC license?

Q: What are the qualifications?

A: The applicant must meet the following criteria:

Successfully complete a background investigation, which includes, but is not limited to; information obtained from the National Crime Information Center, Colorado Crime Information Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and other Law Enforcement Agencies.

Be a resident of El Paso County. (active military stationed in El Paso County qualify as residents)

At least 21 years of age upon receipt of your application.

Submit proof of completion of a firearm safety or training course or class

Provide a copy of your current Colorado Driver's License or Colorado ID and if applicable your Military ID and active duty orders.

Q: What type of firearms training is required?

A: The applicant must submit with the application the original certificate or a photocopy of the certificate with the instructors original signature, affidavit, or other document from the instructor, school, club, business, organization, or group that conducted or taught the course or class, attesting to the successful completion of the training. All documentation must have been obtained within the 10 years preceding submittal of the application. It may be in the following forms:

Certificate from an NRA certified instructor.
Hunter Safety Card.
Evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions.
Current certified firearms instructor.
Current Military orders or proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States Armed Forces reflecting handgun qualifications.
A certificate showing retirement from a Colorado Law Enforcement agency reflecting handgun qualifications.
Certificate of Completion from any firearms safety class or course available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency, junior college, college or university, or private firearms training facility.

http://shr.elpasoco.com/Support+Services+Bureau/Concealed+Handgun+Permit.htm

The bar on that is set very high isn't it? How many traffic fatalities were there last year?

Are you not satisfied with the US system of certifying motor vehicle operators? Do you think there would be fewer deaths without requiring people to pass a written test and a driving test?

Thanks for the long list about gun rules in El Paso. Why are gun rules in El Paso important, in the Big Picture?

For people in El Paso who purchase a hand gun for protection, are there any requirements to learn how to behave with a hand gun in a confrontation in a home or on the street?

How does the US system compare to other countries? Is it less stringent or more so? Do you think there would be fewer deaths or more if the legal age for a license was higher? What about if it cost several thousand dollars for the drivers education?

Where do you suppose El Paso is? Would that be Texas or Colorado or somewhere else? Do you think the El Paso rules are the same or different from the state rules? You got an example of CCW requirements why didn't that serve as an example of what you were asking about? The GAO has a comparative study of state CCW requirements why haven't you looked it up instead of asking some one else what proficiencies that they had to demonstrate? Why don't you click on the link and get the phone number to ask them your question about confrontations?

Who knew that shooting a Republican in the head would make him liberal?

economykiller, Are you saying this man who killed his girlfriend with a gun is the sane one???? I think you are more than a bit confused!

@ sam

Haven't you heard? Liberalism is caused or is a result of brain damage, whether at birth or at some other time in life. ;-)

They are suing on behalf of the brother of the girl who was killed skibum. Try READING the whole article before commenting on something, then you won't sound so ignorant.

NPC

I guess you believe that selling guns to anyone over the internet without background check is just fine, but MSNBC is a problem. If the internet really is what makes people stupid I think you may have a computer addiction.

If you bothered to read the article, the site didn't sell him the gun. The private salesman did. The site was merely an introduction site for people to legally access guns. The fact that someone can misuse the site to sell guns illegally does not mean that the site itself is making the sale.

legally, the fact that the site didn't actually sell the gun is irrelevant under the law. they facilitated an illegal sale. this is why ebay stopped allowing gun sales, and craigslist never has allowed them, as far as i know. they owners of those sites could be found not only fiscally responsible, but possibly even CRIMINALLY responsible. but are they suing for half a gajillion dollars? to close the site? no. they just want them to change the way their search results show up to users, so as not to encourage breaking the law. the objection to this very rational and reasoned change shows just how far our society fetishizes guns. I own a Glock .40 and a Winchester .22 rifle, and I'd love to be an ardent supporter of the second amendment, but it's getting harder and harder for any sane person to do so with a straight face. the simple truth is that some people shouldn't be allowed guns.

Or before 1492...whatever racist side you choose to be on, I guess.

Racism against Canuckistanians? Really?

Because native american's obviously never killed each other or invaded each other's territory.

Native Americans were free to enact and enforce any policy the wanted before or after 1942.

What a bunch of racist s.o.b.s., except for Bob-2112, which is in essence, a very good question.

Since you're obviously so "schooled" on the matter "Z", why don't you elucidate your accusation? You can't because you simply don't have the education to do so. And "bassai", why don't you get on a plane, and take your indo-european a$$ back to wherever it is your from, because it damn sure isn't here. Your comment is as offensive as the "N" word, and you know damn well which one I'm referring to. And lastly, "jimbo", exactly how were they to do this when they were being systematically slaughtered by your grandfathers? You can't negotiate from the wrong end of a gun, and that's where each and every Native inhabitant found themselves, unless they were fortunate enough to even have a gun. I think it's funny when white people bemoan and clamor about the ethnic makeup of this country, when it's not even theirs to gripe about. Go back to freaking europe and become the eurotrash you were meant to be.

NO person can acquire ANY handgun (except exempt blackpowder firearms) in any state other than the state of residence. Federal law. Buyers MAY purchase long guns in another state, but the seller MUST ship the fiream to an FFL in the buyer's state of residence. Most states exempt in-person transfers, but a sale is still prohibited if the seller reasonably believes the buyer is not qualified to possess the firearm. California requires all firearms sales (except black powder firearms) to be conducted with an FFL.

Interstate sales are permissible (legal)under specified conditions. The required practice for these internet interstate sales is that the seller sends the purchased firearm to an FFL designated by the buyer, and the required paperwork (Federal form 4473) and background check is completed by the buyer's FFL. In this case, the seller did not do so, thus committing a felony.

The action is frivolous as Armslist neither sold nor transferred any firearm. Since these transactions do not go through Armslist, suing Armslist is like suing the newspaper for an illegal sale that occurred through an ad placed in the paper. Should the newspaper be liable if I steal a car and sell it through a classified ad? I think not. Armslist merely puts willing sellers and willing buyers together--it is up the the seller to make sure that there is compliance with federal firearms law, and failure to do so is a felony. Simply put, there is already a law on the books dealing with this very issue. And it is simplicity itself to comply with the law by sending firearms to a registered FFL to conduct required background checks on interstate transfers.

I personally have purchased two firearms through the internet, and not one of those sales have violated federal or state law.

I lost an uncle to an auto accident and a son to a handgun accident. I don't support doing away with either motor vehicles or firearms.

And the Brady Center isn't suggesting that firearms be "done away with" either Floridaguy, they're simply saying the proper laws should be followed when purchasing a gun. Try READING an article before commenting on it....Knowledge is Power...ignorance is weakness.

tz - Drinking the Cool Aid? The Brady Center's objective is to ban the private ownership of handguns (if not all guns). They were unsuccessful in doing so with their attempts to get outright bans passed, so their strategy is now one of a thousand cuts; one minor inconvenience (infringement) to gun owners and prospective buyers at a time. This time it's "Don't display firearms for sale in states other than that of the buyer's home state." When an intra-state purchase results in a death, they'll have something to say about that too, all while proclaiming that their objective is not a handgun ban.

The attorney called Armslist the "proximate cause" of the woman's death. That's a flat out lie. The woman's death followed the breaking of several federal and state laws, so the woman's death did not result from a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence of the actions of Armslist. The proximate cause of her death was the man who killed her, and nobody else. The Brady Center is trying to make Armslist's legal right to conduct its website's business part of a chain of action that included criminal acts, but those acts were not theirs and were beyond their control. Facilitating the sale of guns across state lines does not naturally or directly lead to law breaking. (Unless, of course, you're the US Justice Department.) Tens of thousands (if not more) of Internet-facilitated, lawful transfers of firearms are proof that Internet-facilitated interstate firearms sales do not naturally and directly lead to unlawful acts.

How about a knife purchased at target, or wal mart. What about a baseball bat? Or a golf club? how about suing the garden store if somebody is killed using a machete? or buried up to the neck and run over with a riding mower? How about suing GM if somebody is hit by a car, or what about if somebody kills you with their bare hands? Sue God? The Brady campaign serves only to make a total mockery of its namesake, a man who was once sworn to uphold the constitution.

Wow...really NoMoreTax and Robin.... you're REALLY comparing baseball bats and knives to guns...it's sad and pathetic when you types try to argue a point....you just sound so ignorant.

Tz, typical liberal response - when you got no argument, resort to name calling. Just like the president that you voted for!

Jimboza,

Put it back in the holster. I am really sick of folks like you saying things like "typical liberal response". I have news for you, there aren't "typical liberals". We don't all think the same way and gun control is one of those issues where we have a pretty wide range of ideas.

I am a progressive, (read liberal, if you prefer that term), and an avid gun owner and enthusiast. This suit is insane. The dealer violated the law, the purchaser violated the law. Both have been convicted.

Guns aren't the same as knives, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Gun laws don't apply to knives and knife laws don't apply to guns. However, under certain circumstance they can both be deadly weapons. Same is true for baseball bats.

I have to agree with mtucrt, if this case is ruled valid, likewise the Brady Center or any other gun control advocate can potentially be the "proximate" cause of someones death if they promoted gun restrictions that kept that person from legally carrying their own guns where they were killed.

Lets be absolutely clear, Armslist and many similar sites do not sell guns through the Internet. They advertise. The only sales that can be conducted across state lines is through FFL license holder. You must be a Federally licensed firearms dealer on both sides of this transaction, period. It is crystal clear on all the websites and no money exchanges hands through the website. These websites are nothing more than advertising venues.

As I've read a number of these posts it is obvious that a lot of people don't have very good reading comprehension. And I will only say that if you are going to advocate for guns control laws, you need to first understand what the existing laws are. Nothing done in this case was legal except maybe posting the original advertisement of the gun at the website.

The problem isn't that we don't have enough laws or laws that aren't restrictive enough. The problem is people who break laws. Like the dealer and the killer in this instance.

I have no problem with well crafted regulation and believe we need that. However when we write laws that aren't truly enforceable and/or are frequently violated or ignored, they probably aren't very good laws in the first place. Unfortunately, often the response is to just write more laws or make them even more restrictive. It doesn't make a lot of sense and it doesn't work. It also tends to make otherwise law abiding citizens criminal.

You are required to have a driver's licenseto drive a car, but you don't need one to buy a car. Should someone convicted of multiple DUIs still be allowed to purchase or possess a car? Would this potentially keep them from committing another violation? Maybe, maybe not. But you don't hear this being suggested.

We can make arguments that guns are different than cars, and they are. But in some ways they aren't so different. There are many, many millions of guns out there that will never kill or hurt anyone. Just like there are millions of cars out there that will never kill or hurt anyone. In that regard, cars are statistically far more deadly than guns. The problem isn't with the devices, it's with the users who may not use them responsibly. Guns are often used in crimes, but the fact is that cars are used in crimes at a far higher frequency. We just don't typically think about it that way.

The only way you could possibly take guns out of crimes and accidental death or injury, is to totally eliminate them. Banning all sales would really do little because there already are enough out there for every man, woman and child. Think you could confiscate all of them? Fat chance. That would lead to far more guns deaths than occur right now. It would be an enormous task and cost a lot of money to do. And even then you'd need to confiscate every bit of ammunition too. A simple, crude but effective gun is pretty easy to make. Don't need a machine shop or unique materials. In reality if manufactured guns weren't available, I have little doubt the homemade gun would become far more popular. And they are virtually untraceable and easily disposable. Criminals use guns because they're easy. But necessity is the mother of invention. If guns aren't available, people who intend to kill will find an alternate weapon. Human beings were killing other human beings long before the gun ever existed.

And I will just say one more thing about "liberals". In reality, if there were such a thing as a "typical liberal", we would all be for individual gun ownership rights and see suppression of any individual's rights as a basic violation of Constitutional principles. Just like most of us liberals don't want to see government restrictions on what a woman can do with her own body, or who an individual can or can not marry. (But these aren't entirely universal liberal concepts either.) The right has its extremists and the left has its extremists. But the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle, either right leaning or left leaning. Most people do not oppose the legal use of guns, but non-gun owners do tend to get creeped out by them. I tend to see it for the most part about personal choice. Don't like abortions, don't have one. Don't like gays, don't be one. Don't like guns, don't own one.

But is it the website owners fault?

It is if it can be shown that the intent was to knowingly allow illegal sales to take place, which could be a stretch.

I'd say now that the website owner knows, the next time he would be at fault.

Private sales are legal. The only person who committed a criminal act here was the shooter. The buyer did have the moral obligation to ask for ID but it's not the law. Go away anti-gun folks. You are outnumbered.

Hey Cin go back and read the story, the guy doing a year in the pen also broke the law.
Robin and Steel if knives and baseball bats are the same as guns why don't you just buy them instead, seems a lot cheaper.

The government doesn't even manage to control the sale of Heroin or Oxycontin. People with a history of DWI are allowed to purchase alcohol. So how is the government going to control the sale of illegal firearms? Heroin is completely illegal in America yet it is obtainable for those who want it. This gun was sold ILLEGALLY.

Why should it be hard to buy a gun?

I thought there was no such thing as a stupid question but your question shows I was wrong.

Mark Thomas: Firearm used in a crime adds multiple years if the weapon is discharged. ( 5 to 10 years ).

Not if you're a liberal - you need a witch hunt.

If you're a Conservative, you need Depends and Kleenex, and plenty of them, after you LOST THE PRESIDENCY to an African-American twice in a row!

That's why I'd say this dealer/website owner is a lot more culpable than a 1 year sentence.

Ban handguns. 30 thousand deaths a year because of guns.

Ban the NRA. They have fought against every gun regulation that was ever passed.

If they had gotten their way, you could buy a fully automatic weapon without even showing an ID.

Proof?

Sam is bonkers. Mark doesn't mention that doctors kill an average of 125,000 Americans each year due to mistakes and negligence.

Takenaka is lying- From the FBI In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.-

Doctors do their best to save lives. They don't always succeed. Guns do their best to take lives. They often succeed. See the difference, there, sparky?

Actually, most guns purchased legally are used solely for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. Most will never kill a person.

"Most will never kill a person."

Right line of thought, but VAST understatement. Today there are over 310 Million firearms in the US. Patch in DOU44's criminal statics numbers and assuming that any one firearm is only used in a single homicide (very unlikely but lets play it safe), and the number of firearms remained constant, it would take 353 years for even 1% of those firearms to be used in homicides. (310 Million firearms / 8,775 * 0.01)

So if "guns do their best to take lives" wouldn't it be scalpels do their best to save lives? Why should the doctor get credit for what the scalpel does?

No, but if a bartender continues to pour rounds for a drunk, then happily sends him out to drive home, you bet your ass he's liable.

Which is why the seller of the weapon was charged.

Welcome to Obamanation!

Do you mean like this?

Willful shipment or transport of firearm to unlicensed recipient 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))

Willful sale by licensee to person in violation of state law 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))

Willful sale by licensee to out-of-state recipient 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))

Willful sale by licensee without proper record-keeping 5 years (§ 924(a)(1)(D))

Knowing sale to prohibited person 10 years (§ 924(a)(2))

Knowing sale or transfer of handgun without background check 1 year (§ 924(a)(5))

http://ne.fd.org/publications/firearms_cheatsheet.pdf

Weed kills nobody. Guns don't kill anybody. They're about equal on that scale.

Grow up.

Mark isn't fazed by US code. LOL. He prefers mythology.

Guns don't kill anybody.

You must not be using them as designed. Their only function is, in fact, to kill.

"Their only function is, in fact, to kill."

Funny, I've seen hundreds of guns in my time, I can't think of one of them that was used to kill (a human). They are used for target practice, home defense, hunting, and just plain fun. A vast majority of firearms in the US are never used in anger against another human, can you say the same about your average car?

If the only function of a gun is to kill, then mine must all be defective.

You are correct, this just gives people who had no idea about armslist, which is most outside the gun enthusiast community, the front door to come on in. Awesome job Brady as*holes.

PRIVATE SALES ARE LEGAL!

Easiest ignore ever.

Incorrect. It is in fact legal to sell guns across state lines as long as the process involves an ffl in the buyer's state of residence to perform the required background check. And the gun sold cannot be delivered to the buyer if that particular firearm is not lawful in the state to which it is shipped (e.g., California and Mass.) I've purchased two handguns and two blak powder pistols from other states--legally.

Sadly Jim's wife used him literally like a puppet. I have in my Will that if I die in some high-profile shooting my kids are to make themselves useful to pro-gun groups if done tastefully.

They both were taught gun safety and how to shoot at a young age and I would not like to be the one who trys to take my daughter's prized .45 from her.

You never need a gun until you need one NOW!

and you get a much better response than from 911 who have had the police show up hours after the call had been placed...