Anonymous wrote:I think this bad for gun shop owners as many more customers will pay cash. This doubles their risk for in store operating hours.

I have bought expensive weapons/collection type merchandise and the transactions are/were always third party - broker to broker. It is like buying a house. Consumers with 2-3k in cash in and out of local gun dealers is a recipe for disaster.

I thought having guns made them safer. Do the good guys with guns not have any tools to protect themselves from bad guys with guns? I thought the point of having guns and advertising that you have guns deterred bad guys from committing crimes against gun owners. What’s going on here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this bad for gun shop owners as many more customers will pay cash. This doubles their risk for in store operating hours.

I have bought expensive weapons/collection type merchandise and the transactions are/were always third party - broker to broker. It is like buying a house. Consumers with 2-3k in cash in and out of local gun dealers is a recipe for disaster.

More people pay in cash makes everything harder to track and probably more likely to circumvent background checks as well.

Only the people who are planning on committing crimes will pay cash. Law abiding citizens won’t change their habits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this bad for gun shop owners as many more customers will pay cash. This doubles their risk for in store operating hours.

I have bought expensive weapons/collection type merchandise and the transactions are/were always third party - broker to broker. It is like buying a house. Consumers with 2-3k in cash in and out of local gun dealers is a recipe for disaster.

Let them hire more security.

Not my problem.

+1. Like schools have had to do.

Anonymous wrote:I think this bad for gun shop owners as many more customers will pay cash. This doubles their risk for in store operating hours.

I have bought expensive weapons/collection type merchandise and the transactions are/were always third party - broker to broker. It is like buying a house. Consumers with 2-3k in cash in and out of local gun dealers is a recipe for disaster.

More people pay in cash makes everything harder to track and probably more likely to circumvent background checks as well.

Anonymous wrote:I think this bad for gun shop owners as many more customers will pay cash. This doubles their risk for in store operating hours.

I have bought expensive weapons/collection type merchandise and the transactions are/were always third party - broker to broker. It is like buying a house. Consumers with 2-3k in cash in and out of local gun dealers is a recipe for disaster.

Let them hire more security.

Not my problem.

Anonymous wrote:I think this bad for gun shop owners as many more customers will pay cash. This doubles their risk for in store operating hours.

I have bought expensive weapons/collection type merchandise and the transactions are/were always third party - broker to broker. It is like buying a house. Consumers with 2-3k in cash in and out of local gun dealers is a recipe for disaster.

I suppose they should get out of the business of selling guns then. If I were in charge it would literally be impossible to buy a gun legally. I might not be able to repeal the second amendment but I would make it impossible to buy a gun legally. You can posses it, since I couldn’t do anything about that - but there’d be no way you could buy it without breaking the law.

I think this bad for gun shop owners as many more customers will pay cash. This doubles their risk for in store operating hours.

I have bought expensive weapons/collection type merchandise and the transactions are/were always third party - broker to broker. It is like buying a house. Consumers with 2-3k in cash in and out of local gun dealers is a recipe for disaster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law-abiding gun owners won’t care. Criminals use cash

Exactly. Are they really this stupid? Track away. Criminals aren't about to use credit cards to purchase illegal firearms.

You don't think men who have killed their wives or families used a cc for purchase? Some gun manufacturers are using credit. The Uvalde shooting was with a gun that may not have been fully paid off--he availed himself of the program.

^PP is an idiot. The vast majority of mass shooters were NOT criminals until they committed the mass shooting.

Read the OP article. The nightclub shooter did indeed use a credit card. Even if this flag would've stopped this one crazy f*er from buying that many guns, then it would be worth it.

Most people don't have that type of cash on hand to buy that many guns and ammo.

I would love to see some stats on gun purchases -- cash or cc, but we can't because they never used to track them. But we will now, thankfully.

Anonymous wrote:Republicans: Private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want, especially if what they want is deny healthcare on religious grounds and discriminate against gay people!

Private companies: OK, we want to kick Republicans spreading misinformation and encouraging domestic terrorism off our platforms and track gun purchases.

Republicans! How dare private companies be allowed to do whatever they want when it's not hurting the people we want them to hurt!

+1 in a nutshell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Pulse shooter had two guns and lots of ammo. Had he had to pay cash, perhaps he would've had one gun and less ammo.

He killed 49 and injured 53. An additional 5 were injured during the chaos.

Maybe if he had one gun and less ammo, there would not have been over 100 casualties.

This is not complicated...

Considering other family members of his fled overseas, I don’t think it would have mattered.

I don't follow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law-abiding gun owners won’t care. Criminals use cash

Exactly. Are they really this stupid? Track away. Criminals aren't about to use credit cards to purchase illegal firearms.

You don't think men who have killed their wives or families used a cc for purchase? Some gun manufacturers are using credit. The Uvalde shooting was with a gun that may not have been fully paid off--he availed himself of the program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Financial services and institutions should simply make the names of anyone who purchased a gun or gun related item available for all to see on a public database. Let their neighbors and everyone else know they bought a gun. Then people can make use of red flag laws to petition courts to have those guns confiscated. We have the resources in place. People just need to make use of them.

Criminals always use their Amex cards to purchase guns. /s

It might not work for criminals who probably pay cash for black market weapons, but it would be a useful tool for removing guns from the general public.

For example, if the name and address of someone down the street from you who bought a gun was posted on a public database published by financial institutions, you would know that person was a danger to society because they have a gun. You can then go to the court in your locality and petition for a red flag order to be served against that person who just bought that gun. The police will serve a warrant and seize the gun (and any other present) and conduct an investigation into that person. Even if the guns are eventually returned, you can simply file another red flag petition and start the whole process over. If everyone did this to even one person they knew who owned a gun, we could essentially eliminate guns in a few years.

This is a brilliant strategy. What would we need to do to red flag gun nutters we know now and those who are exposed later?

I could answer that question but the "moderator" has deleted previous relevant answers so up to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Financial services and institutions should simply make the names of anyone who purchased a gun or gun related item available for all to see on a public database. Let their neighbors and everyone else know they bought a gun. Then people can make use of red flag laws to petition courts to have those guns confiscated. We have the resources in place. People just need to make use of them.

Criminals always use their Amex cards to purchase guns. /s

It might not work for criminals who probably pay cash for black market weapons, but it would be a useful tool for removing guns from the general public.

For example, if the name and address of someone down the street from you who bought a gun was posted on a public database published by financial institutions, you would know that person was a danger to society because they have a gun. You can then go to the court in your locality and petition for a red flag order to be served against that person who just bought that gun. The police will serve a warrant and seize the gun (and any other present) and conduct an investigation into that person. Even if the guns are eventually returned, you can simply file another red flag petition and start the whole process over. If everyone did this to even one person they knew who owned a gun, we could essentially eliminate guns in a few years.

This is a brilliant strategy. What would we need to do to red flag gun nutters we know now and those who are exposed later?

Don’t start whining when ‘gun nutters’ start calling you in for abuse of your children

Republicans: Private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want, especially if what they want is deny healthcare on religious grounds and discriminate against gay people!

Private companies: OK, we want to kick Republicans spreading misinformation and encouraging domestic terrorism off our platforms and track gun purchases.

Republicans! How dare private companies be allowed to do whatever they want when it's not hurting the people we want them to hurt!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Financial services and institutions should simply make the names of anyone who purchased a gun or gun related item available for all to see on a public database. Let their neighbors and everyone else know they bought a gun. Then people can make use of red flag laws to petition courts to have those guns confiscated. We have the resources in place. People just need to make use of them.

Criminals always use their Amex cards to purchase guns. /s

It might not work for criminals who probably pay cash for black market weapons, but it would be a useful tool for removing guns from the general public.

For example, if the name and address of someone down the street from you who bought a gun was posted on a public database published by financial institutions, you would know that person was a danger to society because they have a gun. You can then go to the court in your locality and petition for a red flag order to be served against that person who just bought that gun. The police will serve a warrant and seize the gun (and any other present) and conduct an investigation into that person. Even if the guns are eventually returned, you can simply file another red flag petition and start the whole process over. If everyone did this to even one person they knew who owned a gun, we could essentially eliminate guns in a few years.

This is a brilliant strategy. What would we need to do to red flag gun nutters we know now and those who are exposed later?

Some states allow for anyone to petition for a red flag order against anyone else. Other states restrict it to only family, domestic partners, etc.

If you live in a state that allows anyone to file, then make use of it. File orders against people you know have guns. If you don’t personally know anyone with a gun, find membership roles for weapon/violence related groups. There are many such databases on the web. Do a search. If you’re really activist minded, go to gun range or gun store and make note of the tags on the vehicles those people are driving. Some states still allow you to look up owner info by car tags. File orders against those people if the red flag law in your state allows for that. For “reason”, simply state “fear and intimidation”, rather than anything specific, which could prove troublesome for you. Stay vague, and let the investigators handle it.

If you don’t live in a state that allows any person to file tor a red flag order, lobby your lawmakers to modify existing laws to allow anyone other than restricted-persons to file for red flag orders.

If you live in a state with no red flag law…. move.