Monday, January 24, 2011

Gun Flow from NH to MA

More relaxed gun laws in a neighboring state can have a direct impact on gun violence.  Such is the case with New Hampshire and Massachusetts

Straw purchasing can be stopped cold.  Here's how.

Any gun purchaser must be licensed and each weapon bought must be registered to him.

The registration document and firearm must be presented to the local police after three months from purchase and each year thereafter in order to receive a stamp allowing continuance of the legal registration.

Failure to present oneself will result in issuance of an arrest warrant.
Now, tell me, what's so difficult about that?

Please leave a comment.


  1. Yes.

    This is an excellent system of common sense control of firearms to insure they don't wind up in the wrong hands. Any law-abiding citizen wouldn't mind a yearly check.

  2. Registration is off the table. None. Nada. Nope. No thank you.

    Registration schemes are only aimed at the otherwise law-abiding. You cannot charge a prohibited person or a criminal with failure to register firearms. You can only charge an honest citizen with possession of an unregistered firearm.

  3. First of all, where is the evidence that the number of crimes solved by gun registration justifies the cost? Is it really worth millions of dollars in taxpayer cost when only helps solve a crime or two (if that)?

    Second, so what if straw purchasing is stopped? Those dangerous people willing to break the law will just find another way to get a gun as long as they are free roaming the streets. The supply of guns to criminals isn't a leaky bucket - you can't just keep plugging holes until they're all stopped, because they will ALWAYS find a way to supply their demand. Making it harder for us doesn't make it hrrd enough for them.


  4. Baldr: “Any law-abiding citizen wouldn't mind a yearly check.”

    Except that Mike has everyone at risk of going to jail every year. Law-abiding citizens mind that.

    MikeB: “Straw purchasing can be stopped cold.”

    You are only addressing gun-running as a business (which I think you overestimate). You have said yourself that girlfriends, family members, and other gang members who are yet to be arrested, are a big source of crime guns. What is your plan for them?

  5. "Now, tell me, what's so difficult about that?"

    It's illegal, it's a lot of work for no gain, it's illegal, I don't like it, it's illegal, I won't comply. Oh yeah, and it's illegal.

  6. Orygunner, as one who keeps asking for proof yourself, maybe you wouldn't mind telling us what's your proof for this one.

    "they will ALWAYS find a way to supply their demand."

    Now, if you're using common sense and logic to determine that forceful statement, you must allow me to use my common sense and logic to make my determinations. How's that sound?

  7. @Mikeb,

    Sure, there's proof everywhere gun control has ever been introduced.

    Washington DC had almost a TOTAL handgun ban from 1976 and on, yet somehow firearm-related violent crime fluctuated up and down for years afterwards (mostly up) until a peak in the early 90's. Somehow, criminals were still able to get guns, proving that they would still find a way in spite of the law.

    Look at the UK, where handguns were TOTALLY banned in 1997, yet the number of violent crime involving handguns continued to fluctuate up and down (mostly up) for the years afterwards. (Page 35 of this report:

    Anywhere I have been able to find the statistics, when any level of gun control is introduced, there is no decrease in the rate of crime involving the firearms that is controlled.

    If you can find any statistics that disprove what I've seen so far for, I would be happy to see them, but unless you can come up with a few solid examples, you're going to have a hard time disproving what I've seen in the statistics from Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, England/Wales, and Australia.


  8. Sorry, you didn't answer the question. I capitalized the key word to give you a hint.

    What's the proof?

    "they will ALWAYS find a way to supply their demand."

    Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that SOME of them did not supply their demand?