i criticize BF's characterization of this story because it ignores what prosecutors and LEO know only too well, which is that proving that a private seller is in the straw buyer category, rather than the category of "collector" who makes "occasional sales from his personal collection" (occasional being conspicuously ill-defined), is very likely going to be difficult to do since without access to the seller's internal mental state, the former category of seller can always just say no, they're in the latter category, and evidence to the contrary may be hard to produce.

You say that, but she was convinced just the same. The sentence was light but if your long winded statement had any validity she would have been acquitted. They have also generated convictions out of very innocent (but technically illegal) cases like a buyer who was paid some money by a legal friend to but a gun for him. Despite both having been able to legally buy guns, they become felons. What you are describing doesn't seem to be much of an issue since the laws are actually pretty strict.

it's not that the current laws aren't being enforced properly, it's that its not possible for the laws to simultaneously accommodate the guys making a fast buck by flipping guns onto the secondary market left and right, AND be effective at keeping sellers from selling to prohibited buyers.

In the case of Washington it can also make felons out of someone who lets his friend shoot one of his guns on his own land. I'll continue on this thought later.

while the gun control advocates' stated goal is to reduce gun availability to prohibited buyers... but that's not what gun rights advocates do. they don't come at it directly. instead, they desperately (and often angrily) avoid any discussion whatsoever

I believe that is your goal, but not the gun control advocates at a political level. The anti gun lobby only spent about fifteen years lying about their motives, they have recently returned to honesty of their true intentions which is to get rid of guns. UBC laws (like the absurd one in Washington) are fine for them. Issues like not being able to let a friend fire a gun came up when the law was being passed but the antis had no interest in making such a commonsense change. This is because their only goal is to make all firearms harder to attain.

I also disagree with your view of the pro-gun side as desperately trying to avoid a discussion that the anti-gun side wants to have. The antis aren't sitting at a table saying "can we just talk about strengthening out system to prevent felons from getting guns?" The want guns gone and only when it's convenient do they pretend its about anything else, they ask for guns to be harder and more difficult for anyone to attain under the promise that it will add safety. The pro-gun side has nothing to gain by giving up rights to the antis because they don't want a compromise. Don't kid yourself into thinking that your side has pure intentions and isn't playing politics as well.