BLUE COLLAR
Gold Member
- Feb 13, 2021
- 969
- 236
- 178
Your first sentence invites me to defend a position that I've not drawn. Quit frankly, I have numerous times stated that all criminal conduct needs to be prosecuted.would good criminals be an oxy moron.As opposed to the good criminals like the ones we saw on Jan 6?if only the bad criminals would simply register before they commit gun crimes.Gun registration helps law enforcement solve crimes. But we know how you feel about law enforcement. We watched it live on January 6.That comment was a question I asked you.After that comment, hell no Iām not going to answer.He'll never answer.
You said no one is coming for your guns
My question was what is a gun registration for?
How does gun registration help law enforcement solve crimes? I think you're wrong, but I welcome your explanation.
It doesn't......as he has been shown over and over again........they want gun registration so they can later ban and confiscate guns...
This is what I have shown August over and over again....which he ignores....
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center
Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.
Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered ā criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun thatās registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.
Registration hasnāt worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had āassistedā in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.
During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not ārecall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.ā
When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldnāt find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.
Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate peopleās guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears arenāt entirely unjustified.
Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that wonāt solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.
https://cssa-cila.org/rights/ten-myths-of-the-long-gun-registry/
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: āThe 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.ā Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.
3/24/18
In countries that have gun registration, what percentage of gun crimes are solved (at least in part) by use of the registry? - Quora
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 donāt 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 arenāt 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. Canadaās 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 isnāt 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 doesnāt prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said āknown associateā and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.Scott Morefield - Think Theyāll Never āCome and Takeā Your Guns Without an Armed Revolt? Think Again
Consider: If rational minds on the Left know all this, to what end are they still pushing for such laws, especially when itās obvious that they donāt care whether ANY gun control laws are actually enforced. Not yet anyway. (Remember, itās always conservatives, not liberals, pushing for enforcement of existing law.)
And yet, they do want more and more laws on the books, and the more draconian, obscure, and hard to keep track of, the better. But why?
Hereās the answer, and it should scare every gun owner in the country:
They want to make de facto criminals out of the majority of the gun owning population.
That way, they can essentially pick us off, one by one.
Without necessarily meaning to, Mehta hits on this critical point in his piece: āA national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals,ā he wrote. āResidents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws ā¦ Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.ā
If liberals are able to pass any sort of āassault weaponsā ban, buyback or no buyback, they know they will make criminals out of several million currently law-abiding gun owners. And even if the majority of those gun owners donāt follow the law now, that wonāt make them any less a criminal. They just havenāt been caught yet.
But when the āright peopleā control the levers of power and the āright lawsā are all in place, make no mistake - they will be caught.
Hereās the rub. Itās one thing to hold up your rifle and shout ācome and take it,ā Ć la Charleton Heston, before thousands of like-minded people. The Feds arenāt going to come to a National Rifle Association convention and start arresting people, at least not yet. And they arenāt going to conduct door-to-door house searches, arresting gun owners and confiscating their firearms, either. Not yet.
But believe me, under the right circumstances and with the right laws in place, the arrests will come. Theyāll come when youāre going to work, or to the bank, or to the park with your kids, or a thousand other places. Theyāll come after youāve used your now-illegal AR-15 to defend yourself against a home invader, or if they spot it during a āroutineā home search.
Never, ever underestimate these people and the depth of their evil. Remember, the Cheka managed to fill the Soviet gulags to the brim, and yet they did it quietly, with little fuss and even less armed revolt.
And they wonāt need to arrest everyone to make the majority obey. No, they only need a few, and word will spread quickly.
So what will you do, dear AR-15 owner, when the āChekaā comes for your neighbor, and you know the laws are on the books to prosecute? Will a ābuybackā and āamnestyā be enough to convince YOU to acquiesce? Youāve got a job, a wife, kids to raise. When they ācome and take it,ā is your family worth risking?
No, when they take your guns there will be no civil war. There will be no large-scale revolution, because liberals are experts at pushing that Overton Window enough not to shock the system. Like frogs in water thatās about to boil, people wonāt jump until itās too late.
How long is a gun on the street before it is "found" by police....
Eighty percent of illegal guns recovered in Michigan have been on the street for at least three years. The average time between a firearm being stolen and turning up in a criminal context ā what police call the ātime to crimeā ā is a long 13 years.
Editorial: How to get illegal guns off the streets
are you suggesting that the bernie violence crowd antifa and blm are the order of peaceful assembly.
how comes they didn't simply close the doors ?
nasty nancy has been calling us violent for years, so in her twisted mind she knew...
where lies the discrepecy.? what happened to the peoples house that she has so protectively called her own. does accountability have a home?
Who is the they who could have closed the doors? Was Nancy alone or only with Dems? Your case is lame.
Your last sentence starts with a juvenile label for the Speaker of the House. Say something intelligent and maybe I won't be bored with it.