Reply #120: That doesn't really answer my question

[Euromutt]

If you sell a handgun to your brother the serial killer, at least you'll know it can be traced back to you and you'll face criminal charges.

That's already the case; if he's caught in possession of a firearm he shouldn't have, local law enforcement will almost certainly request an ATF trace, which will, via the 4473, lead the ATF to you.

Steal a handgun and you won't be able to sell it in the parking lot to someone that thinks he or she is making a legal purchase.

Okay, that's a legitimate consideration, but if--as in this scenario--the buyer wants specifically to legally buy a firearm (and he's only going to a private seller because the seller is offering a better price), then it's almost certain that our buyer isn't interested in using the firearm for unlawful purposes. So this isn't relevant to the objective of keeping firearms out the hands of the criminally inclined.

If you are buying a gun from an individual you'll know it is not stolen as it will be checked.

If you want to be certain you're not receiving stolen goods (or at least, that you won't be liable), why not just buy from an FFL? Or you could take it to your local cop shop on your own initiative and see if they'll run a trace on it. Given that law enforcement routinely requests traces on firearms that are not believed to have been used in crimes, this shouldn't be impossible.

What registration is supposed to achieve that existing laws cannot.

You'll have to excuse me if I remain skeptical that it will actually do what it's supposed to.

Make it harder to sell your stolen gun.

Doubtful. If you live in or near a major city, you can probably find someone who's in the market for a firearm and doesn't care if it's stolen. In fact, the prospective buyer may actually prefer that, as it makes it harder to trace, and if you're the kind of person who would steal and sell a firearm, chances are you have no scruples about whom you sell it to.

Make it possible for your stolen gun to be returned to you.

Theoretically already possible. If you're the original buyer, an ATF trace will lead to you, in which case, you'd better have reported the gun stolen. Speaking of which, what can registration do that reporting the gun as stolen (you do have an inventory of your firearms, listing models and serial numbers, don't you?) cannot?

Make it harder for someone that can't pass a background check to buy a handgun.

Again, doubtful. Once a firearm makes its way into the illegal circuit (via straw purchases, theft, etc.) whoever's selling it is not going to be fussed about the prospective buyer's bona fides. And the available evidence indicates that the criminal element doesn't acquire a significant amount of firearms from private sellers anyway.

Add the charge of "possession of a stolen gun" to a gun crime.

Why would that not be possible under current laws? All it ought to take is for the legal owner to have filed a report of theft. Moreover, if the object is to put offenders away for longer (which I'm not convinced is an effective response to begin with), why not simply increase the penalty for committing a gun crime and/or being in illegal possession of a firearm? Same result, without requiring a registry.

Now, once again, everyone can shot some holes in this idea, however no one can come up with any other or better ideas to stem the movement of handguns into the hands of those that can't pass a background check.

Unfortunately, "nobody can come up with a better idea" doesn't mean the idea under discussion is worth pursuing. If a patient is suffering from an unknown disease, and none of the attending physicians know what to do, you don't treat the patient for some random disease--say, lupus--just because "nobody can come up with a better idea."

What you're essentially advocating is doing something for the sake of (being seen to be) doing something, despite there being no plausible reason to believe it'll have any beneficial effect. And that's just not good enough reason to do it.