The last legal owneras you noted, Milton R. Beuck, was homeless. But because he didn’t keep a WRITTEN RECORD of the sale to the first cop, he was charged with failure to keep said record. You can read all about it here.

As for the massacre, we’ve already had more than one. I see no reason that another will make the American populace rise up in indignant anger. We don’t, as a rule, blame the weapon for the act.

Not a valid use. There was a workplace shooting in Chicago, where the law-abiding cannot shoot back, a couple of years ago. The gun’s history was traced back to someone now homeless, who had lawfully sold it to someone else. It then passed thru two more sets of hands. The last legal owner was charged in connection with the murders.

Registration never solves anything. Especially considering that it does not apply to the criminal class, who are protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.

That depends on the method of registration. Requiring a prohibited person to register a gun he already owns illegally violates the self-incrimination clause, but conditioning the sale on a simultaneous registration does not. Of course, it will only affect guns purchsed through legitimate retail outlets unlikely to be frequented by most criminals, but that’s another issue.

IMO, registration does have one valid use: if a gun ends up being used in a crime, at least the cops know who the last legal owner was.

Asshat.

Wow! I can’t believe the technology they kept hidden for 10 years!

“pretext that legality equals sanity.”
Er, what? So it is sane to ‘legally’ ban guns, but insane not to ban them legally? Did I read that right?

Whatever he and his ilk do is sane but whatever we do is insane? *rolls eyes8 Yeah, really winning debate points with that type of logic.

Sheesh.