Ante up anti gunners...what will you allow for normal gun owners, what do you want?

[2aguy]

They are law abiding til they aren't.

Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.

odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10

but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?

I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.

ready access?

they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?

Absolutely. In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.

And that is an anti gun myth.....

Chicago has 3 million people.

New York has 8 million people.

Both cities have the exact same strict gun control laws.

Chicago has higher gun murder number than New York......and New York is next to Vermont....and Vermont has less restrictive gun laws than Indiana...

So your point makes no sense...but you repeated it nicely from whatever anti gunner you got it from.....

Holy shit, did you fail geography????

Vermont is a solid 300 miles away from NYC!

So you are saying that gangs in New York get car sick? Or they don't have GPS?

Really?

 

[GaryDog]

I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.

ready access?

they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?

Absolutely. In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.

They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?

You're not very bright are you?

Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago

Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.

Now you're bringing up gun shows, and sales by private owners, not gun store owners.

are you into BDSM?

You certainly enjoy getting spanked

Yes, you're "spanking" me with your zero sources, spurious arguments, and poor grammar and spelling.

You may as well be my uncle forwarding a Heritage Foundation email. It's sad, really.

 

[Auld Phart]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.

We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people? And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....

Normal gun owners are not the problem....

Think about that.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........

The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.

Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.

I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument

 

[2aguy]

They are law abiding til they aren't.

Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.

odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10

but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?

I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.

ready access?

they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?

Absolutely. In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.

They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?

You're not very bright are you?

Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago

Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.

Wrong......the anti gun journalist has no idea...the actual thing fueling gun violence in Chicago....prosecutors and judges who let criminals and felons caught with guns off with light sentences.......a felon caught with an illegal gun....repeatedly..will do less than 2 years.........th police know who these guys are...and they keep arresting them...and they keep getting released...that is what is causing gun mirder.

 

[hjmick]

Oh these fuckers are funny, scary as hell, but funny...


What other rights are you people ready to deny citizens?

Your right to breed for starters.

That's the best you have? Pretty damn weak, but then that's to be expected considering the source...


You people really just don't get it, not even a little bit. That's why it is absolutely pointless to attempt to have a rational discussion on this topic with any of you.

 

[2aguy]

Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?

Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........

Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable. Here's what I'd consider fair

1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.

By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge). Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.

I agree but would add a mandatory training class and "driving" test to ensure you know how and when to use the gun.

And a mandatory class on u.s. Government before you vote? How about a literacy test before you vote?

 

[Auld Phart]

ready access?

they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?

Absolutely. In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.

They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?

You're not very bright are you?

Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago

Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.

Now you're bringing up gun shows, and sales by private owners, not gun store owners.

are you into BDSM?

You certainly enjoy getting spanked

Yes, you're "spanking" me with your zero sources, spurious arguments, and poor grammar and spelling.

You may as well be my uncle forwarding a Heritage Foundation email. It's sad, really.

I'm spanking you with common sense arguments, and facts.

things you lack

 

[2aguy]

Anyone ever figure out why some love guns so much?

Th y are the tools of freedom.

 

[2aguy]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.

Yet you mock responsible gun control.

Define it then.

??? I just did. Our regulation of machine guns is very effective. Expand it to include all firearms. No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.

Gangs don't need machine guns...so they don't use them....in Europe..where fully automatic weapons are illegal...they like them...and get them easily...

 

[Al Azar]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?

So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?

Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times. Arms are mentioned but once. Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote. Why the discrepancy?

 

[2aguy]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?

So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?

Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times. Arms are mentioned but once. Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote. Why the discrepancy?

....all you have to do to be eligible to vote is be 18....that's it. Do you want that for guns...turn 18 and you can buy guns?

 

[Al Azar]

1) Background check for every acquisition.

2) Registration of every firearm.

3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.

Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns. We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.

I am curious.......I support current background checks because they make people like you happy....but.....how does any of it stop crime or mass shootings?

Haynes v. UNited States ruled that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....

So only normal people will have to register their guns...people who are not using guns for any crime....

And if a law abiding citizen..who has committed no other crime...or any crime with a gun...you want to punish them over a clerical error...that's what you want?

Any one of these steps is inadequate. All three get the job done.

Again, reference the effectiveness of our existing machine gun laws.

Criminals don't need machine guns so they don't get machine guns.........they can kill with pistols...which is hat they use..........

Your point is wrong.

You miss the point. They use pistols because pistols aren't regulated like machine guns.

 

[2aguy]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?

So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?

Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times. Arms are mentioned but once. Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote. Why the discrepancy?

I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....

What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...

So what do they do?

 

[Auld Phart]

They use pistols, because even on the black market the price of machine guns is restrictive.

 

[Al Azar]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?

So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?

Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times. Arms are mentioned but once. Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote. Why the discrepancy?

....all you have to do to be eligible to vote is be 18....that's it. Do you want that for guns...turn 18 and you can buy guns?

You have to prove a lot more than age to vote. Ever been to Texas?

 

[2aguy]

1) Background check for every acquisition.

2) Registration of every firearm.

3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.

Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns. We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.

I am curious.......I support current background checks because they make people like you happy....but.....how does any of it stop crime or mass shootings?

Haynes v. UNited States ruled that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....

So only normal people will have to register their guns...people who are not using guns for any crime....

And if a law abiding citizen..who has committed no other crime...or any crime with a gun...you want to punish them over a clerical error...that's what you want?

Any one of these steps is inadequate. All three get the job done.

Again, reference the effectiveness of our existing machine gun laws.

Criminals don't need machine guns so they don't get machine guns.........they can kill with pistols...which is hat they use..........

Your point is wrong.

You miss the point. They use pistols because pistols aren't regulated like machine guns.

No....that isn't why at all......gangs in the United States use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry........and they don't waste ammo

French criminals like fully automatic rifles...they are a status symbol with them...and those fully automatic rifles are completely illegal in France...and their criminals get them easily......so you are not correct on this...

 

[2aguy]

They use pistols, because even on the black market the price of machine guns is restrictive.

No......pistols are easy to conceal in a car....and a waistband, or a baby mommas purse, or in a house that might be searched by police....if they wanted machine guns...they would get them.....they are available in this country...

 

[2aguy]

They are law abiding til they aren't.

Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.

odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10

but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?

I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.

ready access?

they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?

Absolutely. In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.

They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?

You're not very bright are you?

Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago

Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.

The suburbs of Chicago are less than an hour.....and you can do the same thing.......your point is not valid.....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Police impound lots

I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?

You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread. At every turn.

Not by you.

You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.

you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to

I'm trying to find a parallel analogy to your absurd situation where law-abiding gun owners have their guns seized.

I can't find one. Because it doesn't exist.

It's happened in many countries around the world.

As a consequence of registration in the absence of any stated law requiring confiscation?

In modern times, in a first-world country?

Please cite.

Australia

 

[Al Azar]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?

So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?

Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times. Arms are mentioned but once. Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote. Why the discrepancy?

I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....

What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...

So what do they do?

Again, any one of these steps alone is inadequate. Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?