Guns in wake of Virginia

[Scaramedic]

NBSP you do not believe there is financial incentives in intelligently monitored gun sales. Let's look at it from 2 points.

#1. The viewpoint of the agency making money.

There are approximately 256,000 Federally licensed gun dealers in the United States. If you are a gun dealer and you wanted to protect yourself from the liability of multi-million dollar lawsuits how much would you pay? Let' say each gun dealer pays $100 a month for this service. That's over $300 million right there. Now an average of over 4 million guns are legally sold a year. If we charge a $25 fee for every gun sale to cover this service that's another $100 million right there, bringing our grand total to $400 million a year. Of course we would have to mandate this for all gun dealers and close the gun shows. The 2nd Amendment say the right to bear arms, not the right to easily buy them at your local fairgrounds.

#2. The viewpoint of the agency losing money.

A credit card company lends money to a loser and they might lose a couple of grand. This make believe agency screws up and they are looking at a multi- million dollar lawsuit. Sounds like a pretty good incentive to make sure and do their job right. If they take every bit of info they get and process it immediately and efficiently they would be immune from liability. They are only responsible what is reported to them, if mental health or law enforcement drops the ball then they should be liable.

The incentive is there , it's just getting laws passed and lobbies ignored to make our country a little safer.

Peace,

Marty

[nbsp]

But to sue someone for selling a gun, there would first have to be gun control laws in place, wouldn't there? The seller of guns are just selling the guns, not pulling the triggers.

Of course without gun control laws there could be a case for pain and suffering or something, but I'm not a lawyer. Can anybody with a legal background comment on this?