The Indianapolis Star gets on the gun-control bandwagon, or at least waves encouragingly at it, in editorializing about Don's Guns, identified as the No. 3 spot in the nation for sales of guns later used in crimes:
It's extremely difficult to catch stores abetting straw purchases in any case, an expert told The Star. And the argument would be less relevant if Indiana restricted quantities sold at one time.
To do so would not violate Second Amendment rights to possess firearms for hunting and self-defense. It would discourage the flow of guns into the hands of criminals and of young people who might become violent criminals only because of easy access to deadly weapons.
So would background checks for buyers from private dealers at gun shows, now not required. So would waiting periods for rifles, shotguns and most assault-style weapons, also not a state mandate.
Straw purchases are illegal, but they're hard to prove, so let's restrict everybody's ability to purchase guns. Typical gun-control logic. And hunting? What Second Amenment are they referring to here? Anybod know a young person, by the way, who became a violent criminal because of "the easy access to deadly weapons"? There wasn't, you know, perhaps a slight inclination present to become such?
