I knew that Jarmin was up to no good!

Oh wait...

Schrodinger, not Schroeder...my bad... :oops:

"When I hear about Schroedinger's gun, I reach for my cat." - Steven Hawkings.

:D

Read it again.

To refresh your memory.
1.Would registration of firearms and regulation of all gun sales have prevented in any way her turning two of the murderers weapons over to a convicted felon?
2.Take Irish regulations for an example, if I was to illegally sell a legally held weapon of my own to a person who is not allowed to own firearms how soon could that crime be detected?

Try again.

Now as a contrast try and compare that to the NRA idiots database proposals which are so seriously hobbled they would give you the "In theory never.".

We are going in circles. No form of registration or regulation is going to prevent someone from giving something to someone else. I don't know what laws they have in Ireland but unless they specify that a deputy must be stationed with your legally owned firearm 24/7:365 there is nothing to prevent you from giving it to someone else.

Dawn Nguyen was legally allowed to purchase the firearms after undergoing her NICS background check. It wasn't discovered that she broke the law by giving the weapons to a felon till 3 years later when they were used in a crime. No piece of paper was going to stand between Nguyen and Spengler blocking the transfer of those weapons.

That is because you are not reading what is written.
Plus you show there is another element......

So you are argueing without the faintest idea what you are argueing for or against which contributes to you running in circles

So are you saying the NRA proposal is a very silly idea?
I agree, the NRA proposal is a very silly idea, unless of course they have other bits of paper to go with the piece of paper they want.

BTW
She was not legally allowed which is why she is charged with the illegal purchase for which she can face 5 years in prison.
If she was legally allowed it wouldn't be a false declaration and she wouldn't be up on a felony charge for the purchase would she.

Well then fill me in, what law does Ireland have that prevents someone from illegally transferring firearms? What law prevents the physical act of transferring them?


Which NRA proposal? There have been several lately.

I'm skeptical of any proposal to regulate the ownership or sale of firearms beyond crazy things like MGs or ATs, because it is so easy to circumvent.


It would be impossible for anyone to know that she was going to use her legal right to purchase a firearm to transfer it in an illegal way. No law, registry or slip of paper would prevent her from doing that.

Registration and renewal, you can of course illegally transfer them, but you will be caught very quickly.

A list of nuts:yep: which is of course useless without lots of other lists.

She would have known.

Registration and renewal would have told her that she was going to get caught if she went ahead with the illegal transfer, the knowledge that you will definately get caught is a good way of preventing some people doing silly things like that.

Every three years apparently, three years is a long time to commit a crime(s). So between the the time that Spengler committed the crime and the time Nguyen purchased the guns would have been equal to the time Ireland requires for renewal of registration. So a Irish type registration would have reduced the window for this crime to be committed by zero.


Police already have lists of people convinced of violent crime regardless if metal illness is a factor or not, the problem is that it is difficult for police to insure that they do not break the law by committing once legal acts now denied to them as felons.

This database (the NCIC) is already used to prevent the direct sale of firearms to criminals (via the NICS).

So the problem isn't regulations or list it's the criminals.


So? Is she law enforcement? Would she have turned herself in for breaking the law? Of course the criminals know the law is broken, but they are fine with it because they are criminals who break the law.


No it would have told her she would need to get the guns back for a day in three years (assuming you need to present the guns at the renewal). Or she could have reported the guns lost, stolen or destroyed before her registration renewal or after it had lapsed.

No since the guaranteed detection of Nguyens crime may have prevented her from commiting that crime in the first place.

Do they also have a list of other things needed to match against those lists as they all pretty useless unless they are combined and comprehensive.

So it doesn't cover sales like this one, or gun fairs or second hand sales or sales where the dealer is not registered.
Bloody big pile of holes isn't it.
Criminals love easy ways to get around restrictions don't they and you wish to kindly keep all the holes for the criminals to use.

So your statement doesn't stand does it.

No she is a criminal, criminals are not supposed to be able to buy guns under your current regulations are they, that means your current regulations don't work.

Ah..... so she would have had to go up to a convicted murderer and ask him to simply hand over his illegal weapons to her...right:doh:

Nice way for her to give up her right to ever own guns again isn't it, plus a nice way to tell the police there are some guns they should be looking for.
Hey she could just have invited some extra criminal charges on herself for good measure.


If the only problem is criminals there should be no regulations on anything.

My mind is turning to jello..o...o.

How is it guaranteed detection of a crime. All she does is not possess the gun anymore. Unless there is evidence that she did something illegal with it there is nothing to make a criminal case over.


They have a list of felons who are not allowed under US law to own firearms. There is no list of "people who probably shouldn't have a gun because we think they might do something bad with it someday", and making such a list would be difficult, biased and ridiculous.


Yes it did cover Nguyen's purchase. She perchased the rifle and shotgun at Gander Mt. a sporting goods store (I've been to the store she purchased them at). She was subject to a criminal background check.


No regulation will prevent one from lying.


Apparently she new him well enough to purchase firearms for him. We don't know if she knew what his crime was (he was in jail before she was even born).


How is it illegal to lose something or have something stolen? Unless they find the person with the weapons and they confess there is no evidence. Heck she could just say she sold them at a gun show in another state.



No laws and regulations are not to prevent most crimes (especially violent ones), they are to establish procedures for convicting offenders. You can regulate away all guns but there will still be people who break those regulations and commit crimes with guns; look at Chicago, guns are regulated almost out of existence there, and there was 500 gun related murders there last year.

How does she no longer possess the gun?

You are missing the important list.
It happens to be the list the loons at the NRA are opposed to.

If it covered her purchase she wouldn't be up on charges over the false declaration would she.

So you had better abolish all regulatuions then.

So you are saying she was a willing criminal who deliberately broke the law to aid another criminal.
I thought your laws meant criminals can't buy guns.

Errrr ....you said she could just lie to the police about her firearms, how is that not a crime?
Not under the laws you are objecting to as all guns and all gun owners are covered.

Your logic is missing a step.You seem to think there are only people and criminals as two distinct uninterchangeable groups.