CDZ Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

[2aguy]

Only normal, law abiding gun owners...who commit no crimes, shoot no people, do not cause trouble with their guns...would be required to register their guns.........

Tell us again how this works to keep guns out of the hands of criminals......

 

[westwall]

This is the REAL ISSUE behind Obama's federal background check scheme. In order to screen out people on no-fly lists, etc. ALL gun purchasers will have to be reported to the FBI, who will have to maintain a list of such purchases.

Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?

Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

Nope. It's a fundamental violation of my Right to privacy.

 

[ogibillm]

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

if you can trace where guns are entering the black market you can shut it down.

You honestly believe black market guns will be registered? You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

No, but how would a gun get to the black market if every transfer is registered

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

This is the REAL ISSUE behind Obama's federal background check scheme. In order to screen out people on no-fly lists, etc. ALL gun purchasers will have to be reported to the FBI, who will have to maintain a list of such purchases.

Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?

Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

I am against using the No-Fly to restrict someone Constitutional right and I am against a National Registry for gun owners.

 

[ogibillm]

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How.....? Please explain how this works....since by law criminals do not have to register illegal guns..... Haynes v. United States...

And criminals get people with clean records to buy the guns for them......and then these people register the guns...and report them stolen......

Mass shooters will register their guns...and then go kill people...

Do you anti gun hacks think at all about these issues....or do you just repeat the mantras over and over and think you are actually saying something important?

seriously?

a registry would not be perfect, you're right, but that doesn't mean it would be worthless

Do you know that criminals do not have to register illegally owned guns....? Do you know that....by Supreme Court ruling....Haynes v. United States....it is unconstitutional and violates their 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination.....

So the only people who would be legally bound to register their guns......law abiding citizens who don't use guns to commmit crimes....

Do you see now why we think you are silly?

Do you get how ridiculous that is? Yes, some finite number of guns would not be registered but with time and law enforcement that number would decrease

 

[hjmick]

Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

No.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

if you can trace where guns are entering the black market you can shut it down.

You honestly believe black market guns will be registered? You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

No, but how would a gun get to the black market if every transfer is registered

Because every transfer isn't going to be registered and because there is such a thing called a file that can remove serial numbers. Anyone can order parts online and create their very own firearm, you want to register every single gun part?

 

[ogibillm]

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

if you can trace where guns are entering the black market you can shut it down.

You honestly believe black market guns will be registered? You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

No, but how would a gun get to the black market if every transfer is registered

Because every transfer isn't going to be registered and because there is such a thing called a file that can remove serial numbers. Anyone can order parts online and create their very own firearm, you want to register every single gun part?

I admit it would take work, but just because it would be hard doesn't mean it wouldn't work

 

[2aguy]

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

if you can trace where guns are entering the black market you can shut it down.

You honestly believe black market guns will be registered? You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

No, but how would a gun get to the black market if every transfer is registered

Because every transfer isn't going to be registered and because there is such a thing called a file that can remove serial numbers. Anyone can order parts online and create their very own firearm, you want to register every single gun part?

I admit it would take work, but just because it would be hard doesn't mean it wouldn't work

Canada tried it.....wasted money and manpower and achieved nothing trying to register 15 million long guns....solved no crimes, and couldn't even get everyone to register.......

We have over 357 million guns in private hands and a lot of those people will resist........

The New York SAFE act....requires registering guns...and people are not registering their guns in liberal New York.....

 

[2aguy]

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How.....? Please explain how this works....since by law criminals do not have to register illegal guns..... Haynes v. United States...

And criminals get people with clean records to buy the guns for them......and then these people register the guns...and report them stolen......

Mass shooters will register their guns...and then go kill people...

Do you anti gun hacks think at all about these issues....or do you just repeat the mantras over and over and think you are actually saying something important?

seriously?

a registry would not be perfect, you're right, but that doesn't mean it would be worthless

Do you know that criminals do not have to register illegally owned guns....? Do you know that....by Supreme Court ruling....Haynes v. United States....it is unconstitutional and violates their 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination.....

So the only people who would be legally bound to register their guns......law abiding citizens who don't use guns to commmit crimes....

Do you see now why we think you are silly?

Do you get how ridiculous that is? Yes, some finite number of guns would not be registered but with time and law enforcement that number would decrease

They can't get people in New York to register their guns...

NY SAFE Act weapons registry numbers released

Fewer than 45,000 assault-style weapons have been registered in New York state since a landmark gun control act took effect in 2013, state records released Tuesday show, suggesting that Empire State gun owners are largely ignoring one of the signature elements of the watershed legislation.

In the years since Gov. Cuomo signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the NY SAFE Act, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their assault-style weapons with the state, according to statistics provided by the New York State Police.

Those individuals themselves registered 44,485 assault-style weapons — a term whose definition under the law was expanded to include military-style features like a pistol grip and popular civilian models of the M16 and AK47 assault rifles — with State Police, the data, which was first obtained by the Albany Times Union, show.

---------------
Law enforcement experts have estimated there could be nearly 1 million assault-style weapons in circulation across the state, suggesting that many New Yorkers are ignoring a central provision of what had been touted by gun control advocates as a milestone law.

“What these numbers expose is that, if there are people who are wilfully ignoring the law, that means tens of thousands of gun owners are not complying with a law that is supported by New Yorkers," said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, citing a May poll commissioned by her group that showed state residents support key provisions of the SAFE Act.


So....what you want to do by requiring people to register their guns.....

Keeping in mind criminals are exempt from registering their illegal guns.....

Is to make normal gun owners who have not used their guns to commit one crime, or shoot one person......into felons for failing to fill out paperwork...to make them face jail, loss of their jobs, and inability to get a new job.........

For failing to fill out paperwork......

And criminals don't have to register their illegal guns (Haynes v. United States)


And that makes sense to you?

 

[BULLDOG]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

This is a couple of years old (2013), but More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Criminal record top reason for U.S. gun-check rejection - CNN.com

 

[2aguy]

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

This is a couple of years old (2013), but More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Criminal record top reason for U.S. gun-check rejection - CNN.com

You realize that they were not criminals...right.....they failed the background check, cleared up whatever clerical errors triggered the fail......then got their gun......you know that ....right?

Criminals do not go through background checks........they steal the guns or get someone with a clean record to buy them....

 

[BULLDOG]

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

This is a couple of years old (2013), but More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Criminal record top reason for U.S. gun-check rejection - CNN.com

You realize that they were not criminals...right.....they failed the background check, cleared up whatever clerical errors triggered the fail......then got their gun......you know that ....right?

Criminals do not go through background checks........they steal the guns or get someone with a clean record to buy them....

You got a link saying those rejected were all later approved?

 

[2aguy]

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

This is a couple of years old (2013), but More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Criminal record top reason for U.S. gun-check rejection - CNN.com

You realize that they were not criminals...right.....they failed the background check, cleared up whatever clerical errors triggered the fail......then got their gun......you know that ....right?

Criminals do not go through background checks........they steal the guns or get someone with a clean record to buy them....

You got a link saying those rejected were all later approved?

Yep.....

John Lott: Background Checks Fail to Curb Gun Crime

As gun-control advocates celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act on Friday, they touted the success of the law, saying that 1 million felons were kept from purchasing guns, and more than 2 million firearm sales were blocked.

"In reality, the 'Brady Checks' are quite ineffective in stopping criminals from getting guns," wrote the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. "There are actually very few hard-core criminals that are stupid enough to even try to buy a gun from a dealer that does a background check.

Lott explains that these 2 million "initial denials" are usually mishaps "because they have a similar name to a felon" a lot like what Americans might deal with if their name is similar to someone else's who is on the "no fly" list.

"All these denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers," Lott writes. "Although just an inconvenience for most, this causes dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense."

As a result, Lott argues that the data show "delays caused by Brady background checks likely increase violent crime slightly, especially rape."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com John Lott: Background Checks Fail to Curb Gun Crime
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

 

[2aguy]

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

This is a couple of years old (2013), but More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Criminal record top reason for U.S. gun-check rejection - CNN.com

You realize that they were not criminals...right.....they failed the background check, cleared up whatever clerical errors triggered the fail......then got their gun......you know that ....right?

Criminals do not go through background checks........they steal the guns or get someone with a clean record to buy them....

You got a link saying those rejected were all later approved?

And here...

Checking the Logic of Background Checks

According to a 2004 report by the Justice Department's inspector general, the most common reason the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) chooses not to pursue these cases is that the buyer does not seem to pose a threat.

"The special agents we spoke with generally commented that they do not consider the vast majority of NICS referral subjects a danger to the public," the report said, "because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past."

The ATF's handling of NICS referrals reflects two facts commonly ignored by background-check enthusiasts.

First, the criteria for stripping people of their Second Amendment rights are absurdly (and unfairly) broad, sweeping pot growers, hubcap thieves, and guys who got into a bar fight 20 years ago together with violent predators.

Second, criminals generally do not buy their weapons in gun stores.

Even in surveys conducted before the Brady Act, only a fifth of state prisoners who had used guns to commit crimes said they bought them from licensed dealers. In a 2004 survey, the share was just one-tenth.


Furthermore, a criminal turned away by a licensed dealer can always steal a gun, buy one from someone who does not run background checks, or ask someone with a clean record to buy one for him. Obama is therefore doubly wrong to equate blocking sales through NICS with preventing "dangerous people" from "getting their hands on a gun."

Given these realities, it is not surprising that a 2000 study by criminologists Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found no evidence that the Brady Act had an impact on homicide rates. But according to supporters of expanded background checks, the problem is that the Brady Act did not go far enough.

One difficulty with that argument: As Cook and Ludwig note, most people who use guns to commit crimes—including almost all mass shooters—could have passed a background check. But what about the rest? Would they be thwarted by a broader screening requirement?

Probably not. Forcing private sellers at gun shows to arrange background checks with the help of licensed dealers is relatively straightforward. But in that 2004 inmate survey, less than 2 percent of respondents said they had bought weapons at gun shows or flea markets.

 

[BULLDOG]

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

This is a couple of years old (2013), but More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Criminal record top reason for U.S. gun-check rejection - CNN.com

You realize that they were not criminals...right.....they failed the background check, cleared up whatever clerical errors triggered the fail......then got their gun......you know that ....right?

Criminals do not go through background checks........they steal the guns or get someone with a clean record to buy them....

You got a link saying those rejected were all later approved?

Yep.....

John Lott: Background Checks Fail to Curb Gun Crime

As gun-control advocates celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act on Friday, they touted the success of the law, saying that 1 million felons were kept from purchasing guns, and more than 2 million firearm sales were blocked.

"In reality, the 'Brady Checks' are quite ineffective in stopping criminals from getting guns," wrote the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. "There are actually very few hard-core criminals that are stupid enough to even try to buy a gun from a dealer that does a background check.

Lott explains that these 2 million "initial denials" are usually mishaps "because they have a similar name to a felon" a lot like what Americans might deal with if their name is similar to someone else's who is on the "no fly" list.

"All these denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers," Lott writes. "Although just an inconvenience for most, this causes dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense."

As a result, Lott argues that the data show "delays caused by Brady background checks likely increase violent crime slightly, especially rape."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com John Lott: Background Checks Fail to Curb Gun Crime
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Lott's claim about false positives relies on the mistaken assumption that every person who is denied a gun purchase but not successfully prosecuted by the federal government for lying on the background check form was actually legally allowed to purchase a firearm. This claim also ignores state-level prosecutions for criminals who attempt to obtain firearms and that federal law enforcement agents have said they must prioritize those cases where felons actually obtain firearms and not when they are stopped from obtaining a gun by a background check.

 

[2aguy]

How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?

Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?

This is a couple of years old (2013), but More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Criminal record top reason for U.S. gun-check rejection - CNN.com

You realize that they were not criminals...right.....they failed the background check, cleared up whatever clerical errors triggered the fail......then got their gun......you know that ....right?

Criminals do not go through background checks........they steal the guns or get someone with a clean record to buy them....

You got a link saying those rejected were all later approved?

Yep.....

John Lott: Background Checks Fail to Curb Gun Crime

As gun-control advocates celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act on Friday, they touted the success of the law, saying that 1 million felons were kept from purchasing guns, and more than 2 million firearm sales were blocked.

"In reality, the 'Brady Checks' are quite ineffective in stopping criminals from getting guns," wrote the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. "There are actually very few hard-core criminals that are stupid enough to even try to buy a gun from a dealer that does a background check.

Lott explains that these 2 million "initial denials" are usually mishaps "because they have a similar name to a felon" a lot like what Americans might deal with if their name is similar to someone else's who is on the "no fly" list.

"All these denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers," Lott writes. "Although just an inconvenience for most, this causes dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense."

As a result, Lott argues that the data show "delays caused by Brady background checks likely increase violent crime slightly, especially rape."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com John Lott: Background Checks Fail to Curb Gun Crime
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Lott's claim about false positives relies on the mistaken assumption that every person who is denied a gun purchase but not successfully prosecuted by the federal government for lying on the background check form was actually legally allowed to purchase a firearm. This claim also ignores state-level prosecutions for criminals who attempt to obtain firearms and that federal law enforcement agents have said they must prioritize those cases where felons actually obtain firearms and not when they are stopped from obtaining a gun by a background check.

And more...

CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center

But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system. Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.”

The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious).

To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here. The Obama administration has stopped releasing this data after 2010.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.

Of the cases referred to the BATF field offices there were still a number of false positives. A 2004 sample found out that about 21 percent of these cases were found to be false positives (the percentage is slightly higher if a weighted sample is used).

Up until this point, no discretion about the merits of the case has entered the picture. If a review of the records indicates that someone is a prohibited individual, they are included. But of these 4,154 cases, only 140 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns being referred to federal prosecutors, just 60 of which involved providing false information when buying a firearm. Of those 140 cases, federal prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 77 times.

State prosecutions take up some of these 4,154, but the state level numbers on prosecutions and convictions are spotty and some of their denials come from some states’ own background check systems. In Oregon, background check related arrests amount to just 0.04% of background checks.

 

[2aguy]

Where do criminals get their guns....


Checking the Logic of Background Checks


Three sources accounted for almost nine out of 10 crime guns: "friends or family" (40 percent), "the street" (38 percent), and theft (10 percent). It is hard to see how any notional background check requirement, even one applying to all private transfers, can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on these sources. As usual with gun control, the attempt to enforce such a requirement would impose costs and uncertain legal risks on law-abiding gun owners while leaving criminals free to go about their business.

 

[ogibillm]

Where do criminals get their guns....


Checking the Logic of Background Checks


Three sources accounted for almost nine out of 10 crime guns: "friends or family" (40 percent), "the street" (38 percent), and theft (10 percent). It is hard to see how any notional background check requirement, even one applying to all private transfers, can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on these sources. As usual with gun control, the attempt to enforce such a requirement would impose costs and uncertain legal risks on law-abiding gun owners while leaving criminals free to go about their business.

and yet you oppose a registry even though it would eliminate 2 of 3 avenues

 

[dilloduck]

I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.

Agree. I call it Speculation Fallacy, more formally known as Slippery Slope.

That's exactly Obama's argument with his "gun control measures". They think these measures will work just in case someone with bad intentions is trying to get one.