Clearly you haven't looked for defensive gun use statistics. Also, there's this which was easilly found. http://www.personaldefenseworl... Ultimately it comes down to this question; Do you believe an individual should have the right to effective self defense?

I've heard of a couple different numbers (all less than 10). At least a couple of those the ATF allegedly mistakenly approved the initial transfer but they can't be transferred again. Yeah, you'd have to have your FFL and SOT to get dealer samples. Hopefully someday the Hughes amendment is repealed and the registry re-opened.

Yeah, that varies state by state. Where I live in MN there is such a requirement (at least my county sheriff told me to keep a bill of sale). A bill of sale also is a common sense way to protect yourself. Say I bought a gun and then sold it to a friend but kept no bill of sale. The ATF will track the gun down to me but then the chain of custody would be left at my feet. Anyone with a brain would keep a bill of sale. I actually prefer the ATF to not keep the 4473's. One is for security (ie OPM breach) and the other is for liberty. While under the current circumstances it may seem crazy, in the event of a tyrannical government you don't want that government to have the means to track down those people who would have the tools to resist said government. And for the Joe's Guns scenario, the state and local LE's would recognize that "Hey, this is the third time we've traced a gun back to Joe's, we should call the ATF and have them look into them".

Yeah, you're right about manufacturing your own firearm. It can't be transferred and can't leave the state where it was made. Yeah, that varies from State to State. For example, in Minnesota you're required to generate a Bill of Sale during a private transfer. I've sold a couple guns in private sales (I'm a MN resident). I called up my county sheriff and asked him what was needed. He said to have a bill of sale made and take down identifying information (DL numbers, CCW Permit number. Permit to Purchase number, etc). When I sold them I advertised them as the buyer must be willing to sign a bill of sale and have a valid carry permit or purchase permit. There is an argument to be made for 'universal BG checks' but that's a question for each state as it's their jurisdiction.

Yeah. I just read that on CNN that he bought it from a dealer. Either NICS denied him and the dealer transferred it anyway or NICS wasn't updated with his status change (the more likely scenario). NICS is a hugely complicated system that pulls in data from all sorts of state and local data sources. Either way, that dealer is going to have some tough discussions with the ATF. Personally, my bet is that someone in SC forgot to update his record so that it didn't get pulled into NICS. A dealer transferring a firearm after a denial would be pretty crazy. I've seen dealers refuse to re-run someone's NICS check even when the buyer had a typo or mis-wrote his address. They just kick them out of the store and deny them because the wrath of the ATF could make things bad for the FFL holder.

Even though we don't have a national gun registry (a few states do IIRC), there is a mechanism to track firearms. Say you recovered a firearm at the scene of a crime. You can see the serial number and the manufacturers markings (mandated by law, also possession of a firearm with a destroyed serial number is a big no-no). You then contact the manufacturer and ask them who they sold it do. Usually it's to a distributor. You then call that distributor, they sold it to XYZ Gun Dealer. You then call XYZ Gun Dealer who then pulls up their record of the transfer (mandated by law that they keep the form 4473 records. FYI, the form 4473 contains the information the dealer sends to the FBI when they run the NICS background check). So you then know the original owner. You then go talk to that owner. From there you then question the original owner to determine what they did with the gun. Was it stolen? Was it sold? If so, who did you sell it to and where's the record of the sale (required to keep those records as well)? So, we have a way to track down firearms that are used in crimes. It involves a few phone calls and scanned documents, but a chain of custody is always left and the original purchaser can be found. If the original purchaser sold the gun but didn't keep a record of who they sold it to their in hot water too.

Yep. you're right. He wouldn't have been able to go to a dealer and buy one because he would have been flagged by NICS. He wouldn't have been able to answer the 4473 truthfully as well (ie the: 'are you a unlawful user of drugs' question). Also, the person who gave him the gun (.45cal) broke the law by either acting as a straw purchaser (felony) or by selling a gun to an unauthorized person (the drug charges) and he would have known about those charges most likely. It's sad to see such a fervor over something like this and then everything the anti-gun advocates proposes is either illegal or wouldn't have prevented the situation. They use a tragedy to further their own political goal. The media plays along with it too which I believe 'encourages' (for lack of a better word) others to do a mass shooting like this because their name will be known across the country and they will be remembered. /rant

Fun fact, from what I've read there's only 1 transferable M249 in the US. The cost of which would be at least 6 figures I'd imagine. Heck, even transferable M16/AR15 machine guns run at least 20k. Body armor isn't that expensive. You buy a plate carrier and then some AR500 steel plates based on what impact rating you want. As far as grenade launchers go, the launcher isn't a regulated item (iirc, don't quote me on it). The grenade itself is considered a Destructive Device under the NFA and is thus subject to a $200 tax stamp, background check, chief LEO signoff, waiting period, and approval by the ATF. And that would have to be done for EACH grenade.

I highly doubt they will as this is something the government SHOULD be doing and it's the Executive branch directing federal government agencies (that fall in the executive branch) to perform this action. It would be different if they issued an order forcing the state governments or private organizations to use HTTPS.

You're missing the point. Bad guys (ie gang members, drug dealers, etc) will do what they want no matter what the law says. Take Chicago for example. Until very recently (last year) Illinois had NO carry program meaning it was impossible to legally carry a gun unless you were LE. We all know about all the crime problems Chicago has. The bad guys (gang members, drug dealers, etc) would carry anyway and not only that they would commit crimes too (armed robbery, murder, etc). So the fact that there's laws against carry and in Chicago's case even possession (ie you can have a gun but it must stay locked up at home) didn't stop all the violence there. Now, Illinois was told by the courts that they had to institute a carry program (along with DC). Now we've seen stories like this stating that Chicago's crime rates are starting to drop. It could be a coincidence but I doubt it. Now, carry permit holders are some of if not the most law abiding group/demographic nationwide. Crimeresearch Stats (PDF warning) JustFacts Those are just a few sources from a quick search. As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I remember when Minnesota was debating the passage of the carry law there (I live in MN). There was no shortage of people saying that it was going to be the wild west, normal arguments would turn deadly, there would be bar fights with guns, and that road rage incidents would end in shootings. That has not happened. There's only been a few incidents and MN has more carry permit holders by percentage than Texas (3% TX vs 3.3% MN, my own calculations). Minnesota Carry Permit Holder Crime Stats I'm sorry, but carry permit holders are law abiding citizens. Add to all the supporting evidence the supreme court cases (Heller, McDonald, etc) where the court affirmed the 2nd amendment and it's pretty clear that carry is safe, effective, and legal.