How To Close A Gun Loophole

A recent incident in Wisconsin highlights one problem with gun ownership. That problem is private sales of guns.

The details are as typical of how a mass shooting happens in American as any other story. A man with a history of domestic violence, Radcliffe Haughton, was ordered to surrender all of his guns to the police when his estranged wife obtained a restraining order against him. Whether or not he did so is actually moot in this case. What is known is that Haughton went out and bought a .40 cal pistol from a private citizen - something that was not illegal for the private owner to do despite the fact it was illegal for Haughton to possess it. There is no requirement for private citizens to do background checks on their gun sales.

The end result was that Haughton's estranged wife was shot and killed, as were two other women, with three wounded and Haughton then killed himself.

One wonders if the person who sold him the gun gives a damn.

But that's not really the point here. The point is that in the story linked above, a state representative is calling for gun laws, but not for anything that would have actually addressed this situation.

From the article:

Tony Gibart, policy coordinator for the Wisconsin Coalition against Domestic Violence, supports Taylor's bill but admits it may not have done anything to stop Haughton.
"We don't know what would have prevented this situation," he said.

All I can say is they sure as hell didn't give it much thought. I know exactly what would have prevented this situation and it's a simple fix.

Make all direct, private sales of firearms illegal.

This means that if you have a gun and want to sell it, you have to do it through a registered gun dealer. This ensures that the rules about waiting periods and background checks - the kind of thing that is supposed to prevent situations like the one that happened in Wisconsin from happening in the first place - are done and done right, without placing an onerous impediment to being able to divest oneself of their firearms.

The seller sets a price, the store owner adds on a consignment fee and each potential buyer pays for the background check up front. Everyone gets what they want: The gun seller gets his price and the conscience-clearing knowledge that he didn't just sell his weapon to some murderous thug who should have been aborted before birth. The gun shop gets a small sum for their trouble on top of the seller's asking price. The gun buyer is checked out and if he passes, gets his gun, likely at less than what one new would have been.

In the interests of fairness, this would apply to any firearm even if it's widely considered a collectable or antique. The only exceptions to this would be firearms that can not be made to actually fire a bullet such as weaponry with attached parts that can't be swapped out with OTC parts to be put back into a fireable condition.

Now, since the NRA fights even the 48 hour background checks that, when they work, prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals, insane people, people with restraining orders and such, I can definitely see them getting their little panties in a bunch and screaming like the ball-less little girls they are over this one. (I equate someone who needs a gun for personal protection as a spineless, skill-less coward unless they lack the physical ability to do it in a less potentially disastrous method.)

But it directly addresses how this situation could have been prevented if private, direct gun sales were illegal. And it would penalize those who failed to perform a background check during the 48 hour waiting period (that Wisconsin has - your state may vary). It's not rocket science here. And although in a gun-happy place like Wisconsin, it has no chance of being implemented.

So I guess you're going to die because in cases like this, even if you're armed, chances all they'll do is toss on some body armor and blow your ass away anyhow.

And that's the other fallacy about arming a whole population with guns to stop crime. Anyone bright enough to pound sand with a hammer would start wearing body armor in that kind of society. If you don't trust strangers, why the HELL would you trust ARMED strangers? Even if YOU are armed, you don't have eyes on the back of your head. So you'll go out and buy the most stylish kind of body armor that will stop handgun bullets.

So will the criminals.

That means the NRA's arguments about gun ownership, conceal carry and such are just so much bullshit. If a criminal wants you dead, they'll do it the old-fashioned way - with a knife or sword.

After all, body armor does not - repeat not - stop sharp-pointed objects like knives and swords. (Note: Some body armors will be "resistant" to stabbing or say that they'll stop a knife, but nothing works all the time against every kind of knife and none work against swords at all because none protect the vulnerable areas that are most effective against a knife or sword attack.) The reason for this is that while a knife in the chest is certainly distracting, it's not necessarily a fatal wound. Cutting the carotids, cutting off the arm, hand, leg or hitting one of their major arteries will certainly kill you. So will stabbing down from the top of the body armor into the chest (Lots of major arteries near the neck). And almost no body armor that you'd ever want to wear will stop someone from cutting upward into your heart from the abdomen (assuming the knife is long enough).

So while you're thinking you're armed, armored and protected, some boy scout with a swiss army knife can still take you down before you can draw your gun, let alone get a shot off. And they can do it quieter than some thug with a gun.

So all in all it would be an escalation. People can carry guns, the criminals will wear body armor if they're going to use a gun until everyone ELSE is wearing body armor. Then the criminal will dispense with guns and body armor and use knives or swords. In a knife fight, agility is key. If you're loaded down with guns and armor, you're going to be too slow to stop someone who ISN'T wearing armor, assuming you even see them coming in the first place. Wearing body armor would negate any supposed protection carrying firearms would provide.

"But wait!" you cry. "There are bullets that can go through body armor!"

As if we want bullets being fired by ANYONE with or without an IQ above 100 that can go through a body wearing body armor two steel drums, three bystanders (also wearing armor) and bury itself a foot into concrete. Yeah, let me know how that "don't kill innocent bystanders" thing goes for you when bullets aren't stopped by anything except something they can't go through and when people aren't on that list of things they can't go through. Putting those kinds of "cop killer" bullets in the hands of ordinary citizens would be amusing if the only people killed were the low-IQ types who'd actually be out on the streets.

The smart people would stay home and have things delivered to them, meeting the delivery folks with razor-sharp short swords until all the imbeciles killed each other off.

In any case, the point here is that the people who didn't think of what to do about the situation in the main story didn't think hard enough. There is a way to regulate private sales of firearms. Buy nobody has the testicles to make that suggestion law.