It is an outlier case once you stop conflating the discussion of the source of guns used in crimes with parents buying children guns.
The article isn't about anything other than determining that the majority of guns used in street crimes are obtained via straw purchases rather than being stolen.
The incidence of fathers buying their sons guns, and then those sons going out and committing crimes with those guns, is an outlier case. Unless you want to argue that the majority of sons who have guns given to them go out and commit crimes...in which case you'd be undercutting your own argument for why we should allow that to happen at all!
Again, to be perfectly clear, the fact that parents purchase guns for their children is not an outlier case and I never stated that it was. I pointed out that those parent to child transfers account for a small portion of illegal crime that occurs in the streets, and that the majority of gun crime in the streets happens via straw purchases from non-guardian adults.
What that means, in terms of policy, is that minimizing the ability of adults to conduct unregulated transfers to minors is of paramount importance if we want to reduce the frequency of guns that get used in street crime while the issue of parent to child transfers is a separate matter that can be addressed within the context of legislation (although, to be frank, given what we know about brain function and maturity of males up to age 25, there's good argument to made for none of them being suitable to own firearms and use them under unsupervised conditions).
I'm still confused as to what you're arguing here...
Are you advocating for fathers being able to give or buy their underage sons handguns against the current laws in place?
Someone doesn't have the right to walk into a gun store and purchase a handgun with the intention of transferring the gun to someone outside the store who wouldn't have otherwise been barred from buying the gun himself. When you argue against that your intention to eviscerate any meaningful or sensible gun regulation becomes clear. Some argue that the laws in place should be enforced rather than implement new ones yet want to argue for maintaining regulations in an unenforceable state. Like this example: making it completely impossible to regulate private party transfers because it's all contingent on someone answering a form honestly and turning a blind eye to what happens as soon as the customer steps a foot away from the register.
The article isn't about anything other than determining that the majority of guns used in street crimes are obtained via straw purchases rather than being stolen.
The incidence of fathers buying their sons guns, and then those sons going out and committing crimes with those guns, is an outlier case. Unless you want to argue that the majority of sons who have guns given to them go out and commit crimes...in which case you'd be undercutting your own argument for why we should allow that to happen at all!
Again, to be perfectly clear, the fact that parents purchase guns for their children is not an outlier case and I never stated that it was. I pointed out that those parent to child transfers account for a small portion of illegal crime that occurs in the streets, and that the majority of gun crime in the streets happens via straw purchases from non-guardian adults.
What that means, in terms of policy, is that minimizing the ability of adults to conduct unregulated transfers to minors is of paramount importance if we want to reduce the frequency of guns that get used in street crime while the issue of parent to child transfers is a separate matter that can be addressed within the context of legislation (although, to be frank, given what we know about brain function and maturity of males up to age 25, there's good argument to made for none of them being suitable to own firearms and use them under unsupervised conditions).
I'm still confused as to what you're arguing here...
Are you advocating for fathers being able to give or buy their underage sons handguns against the current laws in place?
The gun is private property. The owner has the right to give it to whom he wishes, and that transfer is none of the government's business, no matter what the government thinks of that person.
Comment