Those who sell guns to criminals should not be held responsible for crimes committed

Not unless someone could provide a good reason to justify restrictions that severe. And they likely couldn't.

Restrictions that severe would also likely impede self defense too, which is another no.

 

How about, one round a year ?

 

Tell me you aren't a trial lawyer.

 

I’m not a trial lawyer. Did that sound convincing enough ?

 

It's moot. All the other evidence weighed more heavily.

 

That would be both unjustifiable and an impediment to self defense.

 

To say nothing of the far-reaching negative economical impact that such would result in.

 

How about you being allowed one post a year? Or, one sentence in public a year?

 

Charles Manson was convicted and sent to prison, even though he did not personally commit any murders and (according to him) never told anyone to do anything..
( murder anyone )

Al Capone was a clever enough criminal, that it took a Constitutional change and charging him with a new crime he was unprepared for,
Tax evasion !

 

Be tricky too,

Say something like, let's go to the local gunstore, and transfer the gun through them and I will pay the transfer fees, be sure to have upped your selling price by $50 plus applicable taxes, just in case...

Watch the person's reaction, a prohibited person is not likely to want to go through a gun store anyway knowing a rejection is likely.

Another way prohibited people get cold feet is if you require a photocopy of a current and valid drivers license.

 

And the politicians who release violent offenders from prison should face the death penalty when they kill. Like the one in Aurora. Yep that boy was in the pen for two years and was released. He wasn't legally able to buy a gun. And he murdered what, 5 people? He shoulda never been released. Why didn't the gun control laws stop him? And the sheep clamor for more useless laws.

 

If a person knows they are supplying a weapon of any sort to someone who is either prohibited from owning the weapon or has criminal intent, then yes that supplier deserves to be punished under the law. The same is true if the weapon is supplied in violation of the law, such as ignoring the requirement for a background check.

If there is no such knowledge or deliberate violation of the law, there can be no crime by the person supplying the weapon.

The severity of punishment upon conviction should fit the crime. Meaning that the death penalty should be a possibility.

The problem with that is a separate topic. Namely that the death penalty has been documented to be wrongfully applied in some cases. The uncertainty of getting it right 100% of the time leaves me very wary of using the death penalty as a blanket punishment for a class of crimes. Not that I have any complaint with the State killing the guilty of some awful crime, I simply must know the certainty of guilt or innocence is massively clear, undeniable by any measure of science, evidence, investigation or testimony.

 

You're not talking about the death penalty for someone who sells guns to criminals, are you?

Argghhh! my message in the opening post didn't get through to you, if that's the case.

 

Presumably liberal? Are you kidding me?

 

There's a lot of insanity on the liberal side.

(advocating the death penalty was kind of besides the point, the point was they wanted a very harsh degree of punishment, as if they had actually committed the crime that the criminal did)

 

Who wrote the piece?

 

There was a link in the OP, if you had half a brain to figure it out.
(yeah, usually when a word is highlighted and in a different color, that means if you click on it it will take you to a link)

 

I followed the link....

 

Then you didn't do a good job of clarifying the question.

 

If insanity is reducing the number of gun deaths, it’s a worthwhile undertaking.

 

It’s not “ tricky” in every country that does it and has fewer gun deaths.

 

That's just a myth. It's only true when you're looking at the White and Northeast Asian countries, who have lower crime rates anyway.

Brazil, Mexico, South Africa are examples you people don't like to look at.

 

It’s a myth that every democratic country with stronger gun laws has fewer gun deaths ?

Hmmm. That’s not what a every study shows.
https://www.business-insider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2/

 

I've seen crime reports from Switzerland, they look a lot like they do in America.
As Switzerland has begun to diversify, they've had to tighten their gun control laws.
About half the burglary/robbery crime in the country occurs from people who are not citizens.

 

Where might anyone else actually see ligitimate statistics that bears this out ?
Switzerland actually has liberal gun laws and lower gun crime rates then the US. The reason is, they promote national service and fiream training and not just private ownership. Everyone is thought of as a soldier. Sounds like a good place for gun enthusiasts.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/