Best argument against gun control. Nothing else needs to be said.

[jc456]

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

Id support cracking down on gun related crime and taking on gangs in the best way possible. Like I said in my last post the underground is a separate issue and an important one as it is the source of the majoirty of crimes. I’m a gun owner and i am not trying to take people’s guns away nor am I trying to make it impossible or more expensive for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. But I think it is a silly arguement to dismiss our current controls and regulations that we have on our gun industry or blindly dismiss new measures. We don’t live in the Wild West anymore and in a civilized society we treat tools like guns that have the power to kill people very seriously, like we do with cars. We make sure the tool is safe, we make sure that we only sell to responsible people, and we do our best to educate and prevent abuse of that tool.

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

hey slade, just one question, if you wanted to shoot people where would you plan that shooting, at a place with CC or a 'gun free zone'? just asking how honest you really are.

I have no clue how whackos minds work. I’d think that most have targets so it wouldn’t matter if it was gun free or not. Also many go in with the intent to die by either suicide or in a shootout with cops

so being honest isn't your thingy I see. I only know of one idiot who choose Fort Hood to try and kill americans. other than that one, all others are in gun free zones. so the answer is there if you really wanted to discuss gun regs.

 

[jc456]

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

Id support cracking down on gun related crime and taking on gangs in the best way possible. Like I said in my last post the underground is a separate issue and an important one as it is the source of the majoirty of crimes. I’m a gun owner and i am not trying to take people’s guns away nor am I trying to make it impossible or more expensive for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. But I think it is a silly arguement to dismiss our current controls and regulations that we have on our gun industry or blindly dismiss new measures. We don’t live in the Wild West anymore and in a civilized society we treat tools like guns that have the power to kill people very seriously, like we do with cars. We make sure the tool is safe, we make sure that we only sell to responsible people, and we do our best to educate and prevent abuse of that tool.

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame.

But that statement is 180 degrees from where the people are actually going and you have not been following. CC is being voted for by American citizens in suburbia. wow, can't make your shit up.

I’m fine with conceal and carry for communities that vote for it. I’m also respectful to those communities that don’t want it. That’s the difference between us. Well one of the many differences

that isn't what you wrote though.

 

[jc456]

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

the left in any country still doesn't understand what self defense actually means.

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.

True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.

The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.

you wouldn't know unless a specific event occurred. since there is never guns at these events, it is tough to say if if if guns, the fact remains, gun free events is where shooters go. just is. you can peter pan it all you want, but my fact beats your fiction every time.

 

[Pop23]

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

the left in any country still doesn't understand what self defense actually means.

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.

True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.

The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.

The assumption is, that even if there was no background check in place, that the guy could have entered and did his deed. More to the point, these venues, should they be gun free, should take reasonable steps to insure security. The problem often is, they often do not, so some believe that, since the venue does not, they must. Is that unreasonable? I sure can't argue it.

Me, not being an absolutest will agree with the notion that "The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea." Except, sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. It's certainly has been shown that most mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones. Had they not been gun free, would those have been averted? More speculation would be required, but it's just as valid speculation as the opposite.

 

[Slade3200]

the left in any country still doesn't understand what self defense actually means.

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.

True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.

The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.

The assumption is, that even if there was no background check in place, that the guy could have entered and did his deed. More to the point, these venues, should they be gun free, should take reasonable steps to insure security. The problem often is, they often do not, so some believe that, since the venue does not, they must. Is that unreasonable? I sure can't argue it.

Me, not being an absolutest will agree with the notion that "The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea." Except, sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. It's certainly has been shown that most mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones. Had they not been gun free, would those have been averted? More speculation would be required, but it's just as valid speculation as the opposite.

I appreciate the tone of conversation, you make good points, funny how much closer people from opposite sides of the aisle are once they can slow down and just listen to each other. I believe most people just want the best for themselves, their families and their communities. It’s too bad our discourse has become so undisciplined and derogatory that we can’t remember that common bond that we all have and just speak to each other as Americans trying to make our world better. You and I have some obvious differences but I have much more respect for your ideas after this discussion. Thanks for that.

 

[jc456]

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.

True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.

The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.

The assumption is, that even if there was no background check in place, that the guy could have entered and did his deed. More to the point, these venues, should they be gun free, should take reasonable steps to insure security. The problem often is, they often do not, so some believe that, since the venue does not, they must. Is that unreasonable? I sure can't argue it.

Me, not being an absolutest will agree with the notion that "The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea." Except, sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. It's certainly has been shown that most mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones. Had they not been gun free, would those have been averted? More speculation would be required, but it's just as valid speculation as the opposite.

I appreciate the tone of conversation, you make good points, funny how much closer people from opposite sides of the aisle are once they can slow down and just listen to each other. I believe most people just want the best for themselves, their families and their communities. It’s too bad our discourse has become so undisciplined and derogatory that we can’t remember that common bond that we all have and just speak to each other as Americans trying to make our world better. You and I have some obvious differences but I have much more respect for your ideas after this discussion. Thanks for that.

then why don't you tell the left to stand down with signs that show taking away the second amendment.

 

[2aguy]

Using your logic, then not nearly enough car regulations are in place.

I pointed out earlier how your proposed solutions would save no lifes, or actually increase deaths. I also posted earlier that, if the goal is to eliminate as many deaths as possible, a "common sense car regulation" would be to simply eliminate any car capable of exceeding 45 mph.

My regulation still allows you to own and drive a car, just limit it's "potential" killing power.

Of course my "common sense car regulation" has proven data to back it up.

Don't worry though, no ones advocating taking your car.

I’m not advocating taking your gun. And cars do get regulated which is why you don’t see race cars doing 200 mph all over the roads. And data has shown that car related deaths have decrease because of safety measures that have been put in place.

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

And you have been told over and over that criminals ignore background checks by using straw buyers and mass shooters can pass any background check.....

Registration does nothing to help the police.....Canada registered guns and it was a waste of time, money and manpower, they eventually had to stop it because the budget was gong through the roof and it was taking manpower off the streets, all for nothing...



.and do you realize that according to Haynes v United States, actual felons do not have to register their illegal guns.....? Because it violates their Right against self incrimination, so if a felon doesn't have to register his illegal guns, no way can forcing law abiding citizens to register their guns be constitutional.....

 

[2aguy]

Using your logic, then not nearly enough car regulations are in place.

I pointed out earlier how your proposed solutions would save no lifes, or actually increase deaths. I also posted earlier that, if the goal is to eliminate as many deaths as possible, a "common sense car regulation" would be to simply eliminate any car capable of exceeding 45 mph.

My regulation still allows you to own and drive a car, just limit it's "potential" killing power.

Of course my "common sense car regulation" has proven data to back it up.

Don't worry though, no ones advocating taking your car.

I’m not advocating taking your gun. And cars do get regulated which is why you don’t see race cars doing 200 mph all over the roads. And data has shown that car related deaths have decrease because of safety measures that have been put in place.

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

As to gun registration......first, the only reason anti gun leadership wants to register guns is so they can later use those records to confiscate guns when they get the power........

And here is what happened when Canada tried to register long guns......it was a disaster...

And following that, the myth that registration helps police solve crimes.

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------

3/24/18



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[2aguy]

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

Id support cracking down on gun related crime and taking on gangs in the best way possible. Like I said in my last post the underground is a separate issue and an important one as it is the source of the majoirty of crimes. I’m a gun owner and i am not trying to take people’s guns away nor am I trying to make it impossible or more expensive for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. But I think it is a silly arguement to dismiss our current controls and regulations that we have on our gun industry or blindly dismiss new measures. We don’t live in the Wild West anymore and in a civilized society we treat tools like guns that have the power to kill people very seriously, like we do with cars. We make sure the tool is safe, we make sure that we only sell to responsible people, and we do our best to educate and prevent abuse of that tool.

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

They don't know the truth about people who own and carry guns..... consider the fact that law abiding gun carriers are more law abiding than sworn police officers and you can start to see how wrong people are.....and here is more truth...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

A bit of a typo. What would passing those accomplish?

Most are already in place, like the regulations on Autos and the fact you can’t just legally buy them on the street or at the local sporting goods store. I believe we are safer because of that. Same goes for the others. Regulations either make the weapons safer or less accessible to those who shouldn’t own them. It’s not a hard concept to understand. I believe we have had this discussion before

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

the left in any country still doesn't understand what self defense actually means.

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

He is one man, the President, his situation is 1 out of 320 million situations........

Americans use their legal guns 2.4 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....the example of Trump is just a cheap attempt to distort the reality of guns in this country.....

What about those people who don't have Secret Service protection? Do they deserve to be raped, robbed and murdered because you don't think they should have guns?

 

[2aguy]

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

the left in any country still doesn't understand what self defense actually means.

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

I've never been an advocate of full carry. Should a venue prohibit guns, then it is a property rights issue. Whether the man was successful in the purchase of the gun or not, it remains reliant on the criminal, not the law abiding.

True but in this case the law clearly prevented him from buying a gun and he didn’t have the time or resources to get one on the back market so he moved without one.

The venue not allowing guns also shows that having more guns isn’t always the safest idea. That venue was a gun feee zone old sorts which likely saved Trumps life.

Again.... 1 situation out of 320 million people.....

And 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.....where law abiding people can't carry guns, and where time is of the essence in stopping a mass shooter......you have no argument with Trump..... of all the mass shootings, the ones with the lowest amount of casualties are the ones with a law abiding citizen on site with a gun.......

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not advocating taking your gun. And cars do get regulated which is why you don’t see race cars doing 200 mph all over the roads. And data has shown that car related deaths have decrease because of safety measures that have been put in place.

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

And you have been told over and over that criminals ignore background checks by using straw buyers and mass shooters can pass any background check.....

Registration does nothing to help the police.....Canada registered guns and it was a waste of time, money and manpower, they eventually had to stop it because the budget was gong through the roof and it was taking manpower off the streets, all for nothing...



.and do you realize that according to Haynes v United States, actual felons do not have to register their illegal guns.....? Because it violates their Right against self incrimination, so if a felon doesn't have to register his illegal guns, no way can forcing law abiding citizens to register their guns be constitutional.....

Yes, I’ve acknowledged that many criminals ignore the law and have stated several times that the underground presents a separate problem. I’ve also showed an example of how guns restriction laws likely saved Trumps life.

The Haynes ruling sounds crazy on its surface. I’m not familiar with it but if felons are not allowed to have guns then they are breaking the law. Sounds simple enough to me. Perhaps the decisions had to do with needlessly compounding charges?

 

[2aguy]

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

Id support cracking down on gun related crime and taking on gangs in the best way possible. Like I said in my last post the underground is a separate issue and an important one as it is the source of the majoirty of crimes. I’m a gun owner and i am not trying to take people’s guns away nor am I trying to make it impossible or more expensive for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. But I think it is a silly arguement to dismiss our current controls and regulations that we have on our gun industry or blindly dismiss new measures. We don’t live in the Wild West anymore and in a civilized society we treat tools like guns that have the power to kill people very seriously, like we do with cars. We make sure the tool is safe, we make sure that we only sell to responsible people, and we do our best to educate and prevent abuse of that tool.

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame.

But that statement is 180 degrees from where the people are actually going and you have not been following. CC is being voted for by American citizens in suburbia. wow, can't make your shit up.

I’m fine with conceal and carry for communities that vote for it. I’m also respectful to those communities that don’t want it. That’s the difference between us. Well one of the many differences

Carrying a gun for self defense is a Right, not a benefit handed out by local town boards......

It is no different from the Jim Crow era when democrat states didn't allow Black Americans to use the same facilities as whites.....those were local decisions too......

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not advocating taking your gun. And cars do get regulated which is why you don’t see race cars doing 200 mph all over the roads. And data has shown that car related deaths have decrease because of safety measures that have been put in place.

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

As to gun registration......first, the only reason anti gun leadership wants to register guns is so they can later use those records to confiscate guns when they get the power........

And here is what happened when Canada tried to register long guns......it was a disaster...

And following that, the myth that registration helps police solve crimes.

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------

3/24/18



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

Sorry, I don’t buy into the confiscation fear tactic

 

[2aguy]

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

And you have been told over and over that criminals ignore background checks by using straw buyers and mass shooters can pass any background check.....

Registration does nothing to help the police.....Canada registered guns and it was a waste of time, money and manpower, they eventually had to stop it because the budget was gong through the roof and it was taking manpower off the streets, all for nothing...



.and do you realize that according to Haynes v United States, actual felons do not have to register their illegal guns.....? Because it violates their Right against self incrimination, so if a felon doesn't have to register his illegal guns, no way can forcing law abiding citizens to register their guns be constitutional.....

Yes, I’ve acknowledged that many criminals ignore the law and have stated several times that the underground presents a separate problem. I’ve also showed an example of how guns restriction laws likely saved Trumps life.

The Haynes ruling sounds crazy on its surface. I’m not familiar with it but if felons are not allowed to have guns then they are breaking the law. Sounds simple enough to me. Perhaps the decisions had to do with needlessly compounding charges?

Nope...it was an issue of 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination...so if they don't have to register guns, how do you get to tell law abiding citizens they have to register their guns?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

 

[Slade3200]

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

Id support cracking down on gun related crime and taking on gangs in the best way possible. Like I said in my last post the underground is a separate issue and an important one as it is the source of the majoirty of crimes. I’m a gun owner and i am not trying to take people’s guns away nor am I trying to make it impossible or more expensive for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. But I think it is a silly arguement to dismiss our current controls and regulations that we have on our gun industry or blindly dismiss new measures. We don’t live in the Wild West anymore and in a civilized society we treat tools like guns that have the power to kill people very seriously, like we do with cars. We make sure the tool is safe, we make sure that we only sell to responsible people, and we do our best to educate and prevent abuse of that tool.

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

They don't know the truth about people who own and carry guns..... consider the fact that law abiding gun carriers are more law abiding than sworn police officers and you can start to see how wrong people are.....and here is more truth...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Are you trying to claim that the crime rates are directly related to gun ownership?

 

[2aguy]

The majority people being killed with guns are gang members and suicidal individuals. In neither case would your proposal stop any.

My proposal would save 10s of thousands each year.

You propose a zero effect. I propose an incredible life savings

Don’t worry, we aren’t going to take your cars, even though they are far more efficient killers.

I just explained why you can’t have a stat for those who were prevented from killing because of laws so you can’t say it will have a zero effect. I guess you don’t get it

You should learn to read then.

I show reasoning, backed up with reality and include additional argument forwarded, not from the right, but on the left.

Your argument about what the restrictions you want put in place would accomplice? None.

We knew that all ready, just wanted to pin you down on some reasoning, but apparently you have none.

I absolutely have reasoning, it is mostly common sense.... why do I support background checks? Because it helps ensure that responsible people are buying guns. Why do I support regulations on weapons capable of mass destruction like autos? Because it decreases the damage they can do should somebody use them against a crowd. Why would I support registration? Because it would help law enforcement and accountability when guns are used in crimes.

Do I think these ideas will end all gun crime? Hell no. I realize that there is a black market and many people get guns outside of the law. That’s a separate problem.

As to gun registration......first, the only reason anti gun leadership wants to register guns is so they can later use those records to confiscate guns when they get the power........

And here is what happened when Canada tried to register long guns......it was a disaster...

And following that, the myth that registration helps police solve crimes.

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------

3/24/18



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

Sorry, I don’t buy into the confiscation fear tactic

I don't care what you buy into....it is a fact.....registration happened in Germany in the late 1920s, confiscation happened 10 years later, dittos Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, and every other country that registered guns....

There is no reason for the government to know if you own a gun or not. If you commit a crime with a gun, then they can arrest you...

 

[2aguy]

Not that I think your intent is anything less than noble, It's simply Naive.

When I asked what your proposal accomplished, I knew the answer already. By the very nature of Gun Violence and Suicide (the majority of gun related deaths), your proposals would accomplish little or none, or even worse, increase the body count, not because the proposals are not noble, but human nature and the criminal mind make them invalid.

One, they are reliant on Criminals to abide by them. Homicide in this nation resides mostly within a small group of individuals that don't really care if you do background checks. Yes, they would insure that Law Abiding Citizens would be limited to gun ownership, but we really aren't all that concerned if a law abiding citizen has a gun or not, they, by default obey all laws, including murder or rape.

A criminal however, would, by default, not apply for a permit, making a background check useless.

A suicidal individual likely already owns a gun, or might not have anything in his medical history that would be caught in a background check that stops him from purchase. Even if he did, someone in that state of mind probably doesn't care. There are many other ways to commit suicide minus a gun. Guns are not a prerequisite to suicide.

I've offered three examples, actual events, in which someone who was suicidal, without access to a gun, used other methods to end their life's. Those efforts didn't conclude with the death of 3 people (actually one lived), but included 9 others. One jumped from an overpass, killing not just himself, but the driver of a car below. The other two involved driving the wrong way down a Freeway, one took the life of another driver and the other taking the live's of 7 other people.

Not to sound morbid or heartless, but if those three suicides had had access to a gun, we would have 3 dead, not 11. So you could see an increase in body count, not a reduction.

Bump stocks, or other devices that makes a semi-auto fire more rapidly, have been used in exactly one mass casualty event. There is no evidence that this multi-millionaire was reliant on the availability of what you propose to ban. As been highlighted before, a man of that means has multiple ways of creating one, should bans be universally placed, or by simply using string in place of a manufactured bump stock. Lastly, we can all be very glad that not many of great wealth end up being murderous monsters. With great wealth comes great ability. What this idiot did was likely minute in comparison to what he could have done had he not had a gun available. Look at what Timothy McVeigh was able to accomplish with limited funds and multiply that many times.

Last is accidental gun discharge. I can't find one in which a background check, registration or banning bump stocks changed what happened.

The answers to eliminating these deaths are pretty clear.

1. Extreme prison sentences for violent criminals. I've heard 30 years, which I am OK with, but longer would not hurt my feelings.

2. Treat Gang Membership as we do Terrorist membership. It is, after-all, what they are.

3. Drug dealers caught with a weapon should be put away as per #1

4. Strictly monitor anyone and everyone put on a SSRI antidepressant and make frivolous prescribing of these a criminal offense.

Id support cracking down on gun related crime and taking on gangs in the best way possible. Like I said in my last post the underground is a separate issue and an important one as it is the source of the majoirty of crimes. I’m a gun owner and i am not trying to take people’s guns away nor am I trying to make it impossible or more expensive for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. But I think it is a silly arguement to dismiss our current controls and regulations that we have on our gun industry or blindly dismiss new measures. We don’t live in the Wild West anymore and in a civilized society we treat tools like guns that have the power to kill people very seriously, like we do with cars. We make sure the tool is safe, we make sure that we only sell to responsible people, and we do our best to educate and prevent abuse of that tool.

I think we mostly agree Slade. Where we likely disagree is in a couple of key areas.

Maybe the most is where you say we don't live in the wild west anymore. Other than it's location, in many aspects we actually do still live there. Gangs run havoc over some highly populated areas and Drug lords others.

Putting the cart before the horse is the main reason I reject any further discussion on gun limitation. Until we get control of the gangs and the Drug lords, I think it's just pissing in the wind to think we have a prayers chance in hell of bringing the body count down to anything of statistical value.

The underground and gang ridden ghettos are very much like the Wild West, but in civilized society it is not and I just don’t think most families in suburbia want more guns on people’s hips while they walk through the streets or sit next to a stranger at a bar or go to a ballgame. I know many people that feel very uneasy around guns and I know many that feel safer with a gun, I think we need to be respectful to both.

I also think a cause of how we are treating gun control comes from the media coverage that blows up over some shootings but lacks awareness over the every day violence that occurs all over the nation from gangs. If gang violence was covered like school shootings maybe there would be a more concentrated effort to address it. Again, it is a separate but still an important issue

They don't know the truth about people who own and carry guns..... consider the fact that law abiding gun carriers are more law abiding than sworn police officers and you can start to see how wrong people are.....and here is more truth...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Are you trying to claim that the crime rates are directly related to gun ownership?

There are about a dozen studies that show that concealed carry helps to lower the crime rate...but that isn't the point of those stats....

What those statistics show is that law abiding gun owners owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate, the gun murder rate or the violent crime rate......which is the core belief of anti gunners.....their entire argument is based on the lie that more guns = more gun crime....and our history, and the history of Britain shows this isn't true.

 

[Slade3200]

Most are already in place, like the regulations on Autos and the fact you can’t just legally buy them on the street or at the local sporting goods store. I believe we are safer because of that. Same goes for the others. Regulations either make the weapons safer or less accessible to those who shouldn’t own them. It’s not a hard concept to understand. I believe we have had this discussion before

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

the left in any country still doesn't understand what self defense actually means.

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

He is one man, the President, his situation is 1 out of 320 million situations........

Americans use their legal guns 2.4 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....the example of Trump is just a cheap attempt to distort the reality of guns in this country.....

What about those people who don't have Secret Service protection? Do they deserve to be raped, robbed and murdered because you don't think they should have guns?

My example with Trump is a shining example of how gun regulation can prevent death, plain and simple. The guy tried to buy a gun to kill Trump and couldn’t. The venue didn’t allow the crowd to carry guns. Both examples show that regulations that restrict guns can help in certain situations despite your claims

 

[jc456]

but it still boils down to, can someone get a gun if they really wanted one? If you can't honestly answer that, then any regulation is useless.

the left in any country still doesn't understand what self defense actually means.

Any and all gun regulation is reliant on the Criminal to adhere to it. They are the ones that create the body count.

Unless it is that behavior being addressed by the process, any regulation is doomed to fail.

I don’t agree. If a law or regulation prevents death you can’t always measure it so you can’t really say that they have no effect. Here is an example of how gun control likely saved a life, Trumps life.... remember last year during Trumps rally in Vegas? A British man flew out to kill trump. He tried to buy a gun but was not successful so he tried to grab a police officers gun at the rally and was then arrested.

Had the man been able to buy a gun Trump may not be here today. If the rally allowed people to carry guns then Trump would likely be dead. Those regulations likely saved his life and prevented a murder. See my point?

British man pleads guilty to plan to shoot Trump at Las Vegas rally

He is one man, the President, his situation is 1 out of 320 million situations........

Americans use their legal guns 2.4 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....the example of Trump is just a cheap attempt to distort the reality of guns in this country.....

What about those people who don't have Secret Service protection? Do they deserve to be raped, robbed and murdered because you don't think they should have guns?

My example with Trump is a shining example of how gun regulation can prevent death, plain and simple. The guy tried to buy a gun to kill Trump and couldn’t. The venue didn’t allow the crowd to carry guns. Both examples show that regulations that restrict guns can help in certain situations despite your claims

and what did they guy do? went to get one illegally. it's what we told you.