CDZ If registering guns is Okay, then why not make everyone submit DNA to the police?

[OODA_Loop]

To answer the question in the title, I'll ask another question to ponder along with yours.

How many people can be put to death with a load from a gun and how many can be put to death with a load of DNA from a rim of a coffee cup?

You're putting forth just another absurd false equivalency! And don't even claim I'm for another such absurd claim because I'm not in favor of blanket gun confiscation! Scalia got it right in Heller! I suggest you try memorizing the first two paragraphs of Section III of the decision which is rock solid precedent and sound law today!

It is not a false equivalency...... wether or not guns can kill you isn't the issue.... the anti gunners claim that registering guns will help reduce gun crime.... taking DNA samples from all citizens would also reduce crime.

It is not a false equivalency...... wether or not guns can kill you isn't the issue...

It's not what many folks across the Nation are upset about with 154 mass shooting in the US between Jan 1 & June 28 of this year already? If resisting gun control efforts isn't your main concern, then why did you even mention that very thing when you initiated this discussion* & with the nick you wear...2A Guy??
* ~~ There have been 154 mass shootings in the US so far in 2018 — here's the full list ~~

Now you've moved on to another false equivalency;

...the anti gunners claim that registering guns will help reduce gun crime.... taking DNA samples from all citizens would also reduce crime.

Registering firearms could well reduce gun crime to some extent as anyone with an open mind can easily surmise. However, taking DNA samples from everyone before hand could never prevent a crime simply because any relevant DNA of the perp left at a crime would only be useful AFTER a crime was committed, which presents another dichotomous absurdity to this second claim of yours.

As a matter of fact, registration of firearms is Constitutional; again see Heller first two paragraphs of Section III again. On the other hand, forcing an individual to give a sample of their DNA against their will without due process is absolutely unconstitutional.

They are already registered at purchase.

No they are not.

 

[Toronado3800]

The anti gunners here on U.Smessage and in other places keep calling for gun registration....they falsely believe it will help solve crimes and keep guns out of the hands of crimnals.

If that is so important, and so much other crime actually happens over and above gun murder...why not force every American citizen to submit a DNA sample at Birth? If solving crimes is so important that we need to register all guns, making all gun owners guilty until proven innocent, where is the argument against DNA samples on all of us? Considering how many crimes now involve DNA at the scene of the crime...why not?

My car is registered. We register DNA sometimes, quit making it sound like a good idea to DNA everyone lol.

No really, register them guns and make ppl keep track of them. I KNOW of a problem with folks helping their friends with criminal backgrounds acquire guns. Maybe its a problem we can solve other ways. I'm up for suggestions.

 

[2aguy]

The anti gunners here on U.Smessage and in other places keep calling for gun registration....they falsely believe it will help solve crimes and keep guns out of the hands of crimnals.

If that is so important, and so much other crime actually happens over and above gun murder...why not force every American citizen to submit a DNA sample at Birth? If solving crimes is so important that we need to register all guns, making all gun owners guilty until proven innocent, where is the argument against DNA samples on all of us? Considering how many crimes now involve DNA at the scene of the crime...why not?

My car is registered. We register DNA sometimes, quit making it sound like a good idea to DNA everyone lol.

No really, register them guns and make ppl keep track of them. I KNOW of a problem with folks helping their friends with criminal backgrounds acquire guns. Maybe its a problem we can solve other ways. I'm up for suggestions.

The problem is straw buyers and it is already illegal.....and they already catch them when they catch the actual criminal with the illegal gun...hey, who gave you the gun.......that is how it happens now.......we don't need to register guns.......


And if you believe we do, then we should get DNA from everyone too.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

 

[2aguy]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

First.... Mother Jone uses the FBI definition of a Mass Public Shooting which is different from other crime related shootings, such as family murder, terrorism or gang violence.... you want to hide the difference because if you don't mix all types of shootings together you get very few shootings where a complete stranger walks into a public place and shoots people....

As to the Mother Jones Article, the list is accompanied by a brief introduction and in that introduction they link to their definition...now that definition links to the old number of 4 killed....like you, obama changed that down to 3 in the hopes of getting more shootings declared mass public shootings....

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

Editor’s note: This database originally covered 1982-2012 and has since been expanded through 2018. For full context and analysis on this data, see our Guide to Mass Shootings in America.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

click on the link shown above....and you get here...

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

Our research focused on indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. Other news outlets and researchers have since published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings may be useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at a distinct phenomenon—from the firearms used and mental health factors to the growing copycat problem. Tracking mass shootings is complex; we believe ours is the most usefulapproach.

 

[2aguy]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

And here you go, showing you don't understand the issue ...

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination.

That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

So....genius...as you fail to realize...the only people who are subject to criminal punishment for failing to register their guns are law abiding citizens, and that point is completely lost on you since the point of registering guns, according to you guys, is to help solve crimes......

Actual criminals.....with actual illegal guns, can't be punished for not registering their illegal guns..... but if a law abiding citizen fails to register their legal guns, they can then be punished... Do you realize how stupid that is?

It is also unConstitutional under the Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment......

 

[2aguy]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

 

[Toronado3800]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

 

[2aguy]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

No... I didn't sell the gun to bob, I lost it. It was stolen..... and because of that, unless the straw buyer is doing it in large numbers, they don't prosecute them..... and since most straw buyers are wifes, girlfriends and mothers...... prosecutors don't want to take those cases to court where the baby momma says.... he said he would beat the crap out of me if I didn't buy him the gun.....

Current police techniques are all we need to arrest gun criminals....


That is how it is done now.....and it works.... but that isn't what you guys want. You guys want to make it more expensive, more time consuming and legally dangerous to sell a gun to someone, making it less likely that people will sell their private guns.


And, of course, the real reason.... you want to know who has the gun so that when you get the power, you can collect them when you ban them.

You have no argument.

 

[2aguy]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

And this is where your point falls apart....

Billy Bob is addicted to meth. He gets busted by the cops. What serial number on the meth that they find in his possession do they use to find out who sold the meth to Billy Bob in the first place?

Current police techniques are all they need to arrest criminals who use guns and who sell guns illegally. If you follow these things...as I obviously do.....they capture straw sellers using police informants.... so there is no need, and no Constitutional grounds, to register law abiding gun owners.

 

[Toronado3800]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

No... I didn't sell the gun to bob, I lost it. It was stolen..... and because of that, unless the straw buyer is doing it in large numbers, they don't prosecute them..... and since most straw buyers are wifes, girlfriends and mothers...... prosecutors don't want to take those cases to court where the baby momma says.... he said he would beat the crap out of me if I didn't buy him the gun.....

Current police techniques are all we need to arrest gun criminals....


That is how it is done now.....and it works.... but that isn't what you guys want. You guys want to make it more expensive, more time consuming and legally dangerous to sell a gun to someone, making it less likely that people will sell their private guns.


And, of course, the real reason.... you want to know who has the gun so that when you get the power, you can collect them when you ban them.

You have no argument.

I might be naive in the motivations of others who want to register guns. Mostly I want to send that wife, girlfriend, mother or friend who "lost" their gun to jail. Sympathy is not my problem.

You buy that gun, you are responsible for it just like that car in the deadly rental car or van argument you posted a few months back. I buy a car which can kill a dozen ppl just like my shotgun and I have to register the car but not the shotgun? If we are going "use your pistol to overthrow the government far fetched", my car is as or more deadly to an Abrams than my shotgun.

Now if you are softer on crime than me that is a thing. If you want to go vote soft judges or soft prosecutors out I'm all for that. Its easy enough to fire up a Joomla powered 2006 technology website that works perfectly fine on every device to keep track of who is soft on crime.

 

[Toronado3800]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

And this is where your point falls apart....

Billy Bob is addicted to meth. He gets busted by the cops. What serial number on the meth that they find in his possession do they use to find out who sold the meth to Billy Bob in the first place?

Current police techniques are all they need to arrest criminals who use guns and who sell guns illegally. If you follow these things...as I obviously do.....they capture straw sellers using police informants.... so there is no need, and no Constitutional grounds, to register law abiding gun owners.

Serial number on the meth? Frequently cops just don't find serial numbers on drugs (obviously). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to analyze where the drugs came from when those techniques arise. Some folks roll on their dealers, others don't.

But why handicap cops in gun cases just because we can't put serial numbers on drugs? We've been over this before. If your car has two problems but you can only fix one today, fix it.

 

[2aguy]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

No... I didn't sell the gun to bob, I lost it. It was stolen..... and because of that, unless the straw buyer is doing it in large numbers, they don't prosecute them..... and since most straw buyers are wifes, girlfriends and mothers...... prosecutors don't want to take those cases to court where the baby momma says.... he said he would beat the crap out of me if I didn't buy him the gun.....

Current police techniques are all we need to arrest gun criminals....


That is how it is done now.....and it works.... but that isn't what you guys want. You guys want to make it more expensive, more time consuming and legally dangerous to sell a gun to someone, making it less likely that people will sell their private guns.


And, of course, the real reason.... you want to know who has the gun so that when you get the power, you can collect them when you ban them.

You have no argument.

I might be naive in the motivations of others who want to register guns. Mostly I want to send that wife, girlfriend, mother or friend who "lost" their gun to jail. Sympathy is not my problem.

You buy that gun, you are responsible for it just like that car in the deadly rental car or van argument you posted a few months back. I buy a car which can kill a dozen ppl just like my shotgun and I have to register the car but not the shotgun? If we are going "use your pistol to overthrow the government far fetched", my car is as or more deadly to an Abrams than my shotgun.

Now if you are softer on crime than me that is a thing. If you want to go vote soft judges or soft prosecutors out I'm all for that. Its easy enough to fire up a Joomla powered 2006 technology website that works perfectly fine on every device to keep track of who is soft on crime.

You do realize the criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? Right? Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

Then, cars are not a Constitutionally protected item...guns are. And socialist governments did not first confiscate cars before they committed mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing against people...... they confiscated the guns, using gun registration lists.

This is the truth about straw buyers that your example didn't show, since you aren't interested in the actual truth...

Straw Purchasing Guns: US Needs to Take It Seriously | [site:name] | National Review


I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.


In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

 

[2aguy]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

And this is where your point falls apart....

Billy Bob is addicted to meth. He gets busted by the cops. What serial number on the meth that they find in his possession do they use to find out who sold the meth to Billy Bob in the first place?

Current police techniques are all they need to arrest criminals who use guns and who sell guns illegally. If you follow these things...as I obviously do.....they capture straw sellers using police informants.... so there is no need, and no Constitutional grounds, to register law abiding gun owners.

Serial number on the meth? Frequently cops just don't find serial numbers on drugs (obviously). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to analyze where the drugs came from when those techniques arise. Some folks roll on their dealers, others don't.

But why handicap cops in gun cases just because we can't put serial numbers on drugs? We've been over this before. If your car has two problems but you can only fix one today, fix it.

Because the guy pulling the trigger is not the guy who bought the gun..... and since the end game is banning and confiscating guns, gun registration is a non starter.... you can't get past that. You can't get past Britain, Australia, Germany, Canada, New York, and now South Africa, who registered guns, and ended up banning and confiscating guns.....sorry..... you don't have a case.

 

[2aguy]

Your post #13:

First, there were not 154 mass shootings, that is a lie..... Mother Jones, Left wing, anti gun news source has an exact list that goes by the actual definition of what a mass public shooting is..... [Emphasis Added]

Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~

It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:

Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..... Your open mind set aside, the actual facts show that gun registration does not apply to actual criminals....the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns. Do you see where your surmising starts off on shaky ground? Then, Canada tried to register 15 million long guns.....they had to stop because it cost too much, cost too much manpower and didn't help to solve crime....

So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality.

Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:

Registering guns is not Constitutional.....

Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:

Your post means you can't explain what you said. What you said makes no sense.

Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

And this is where your point falls apart....

Billy Bob is addicted to meth. He gets busted by the cops. What serial number on the meth that they find in his possession do they use to find out who sold the meth to Billy Bob in the first place?

Current police techniques are all they need to arrest criminals who use guns and who sell guns illegally. If you follow these things...as I obviously do.....they capture straw sellers using police informants.... so there is no need, and no Constitutional grounds, to register law abiding gun owners.

Serial number on the meth? Frequently cops just don't find serial numbers on drugs (obviously). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to analyze where the drugs came from when those techniques arise. Some folks roll on their dealers, others don't.

But why handicap cops in gun cases just because we can't put serial numbers on drugs? We've been over this before. If your car has two problems but you can only fix one today, fix it.

Gun registration is a non starter....but here is what happens when a country actually does it......

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Registering firearms could well reduce gun crime to some extent as anyone with an open mind can easily surmise.

How so ?

How would allowing habitual felons, the mentally ill and criminal gangs uninhibited access to firearms reduce the incidence of crime for one example?

So you think registering guns will stop criminals from stealing guns and selling them on the streets?
Will it also stop guns from being smuggled over the border or straw purchases by family and friends of said criminals?

Will everyone with an illegal gun right now register it if such a law is passed?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

First.... Mother Jone uses the FBI definition of a Mass Public Shooting which is different from other crime related shootings, such as family murder, terrorism or gang violence.

That is blatantly FALSE! As I previously pointed out, Mother Jones used 5 separate and individual criteria to compile their list. You referred to ONLY ONE of those which was used as the measure for inclusion on their list. You mischaracterization implies it was the sole factor of those considered for the compilation of their list, which is FALSE as well as duplicitous.

I provided you with the link to the list of the 5 criteria used by Mother Jones to make a meaningful comparison between a single mass shooting from each list in my post #24. The very obvious purpose was to show the gross disparity between two different shooting, one classified as a mass shooting and the other classified as not a mass shooting in terms of the general human impact to PEOPLE and, in turn, to society at large!

You ignored all of that EXCEPT the link that I provided, which you wove into another off topic bit of incoherency. You proudly cited that link three time in your post #25 and completely ignored the list of the 5 criteria used to compile the Mother Jones list you used, but here it is again outside of a Quote Box;

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~



The credibility of your "arguments" is non-existant!

And here you go, showing you don't understand the issue ...

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination.

That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

So....genius...as you fail to realize...the only people who are subject to criminal punishment for failing to register their guns are law abiding citizens, and that point is completely lost on you since the point of registering guns, according to you guys, is to help solve crimes......

I'll make this as brief as possible for those with limited attention spans and cognitive abilities.

1. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored can not lawfully possess a firearm, period.
2. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored can not lawfully possess a firearm and therefore can not lawfully register their unlawfully possessed firearm.
3. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored who can not lawfully possess a firearm would not be in lawful possession of a firearm, and would most likely be reported, arrested for that crime of unlawful possession of a firearm and the weapon confiscated.

Haynes v. U. S. was the driver that erased that loophole with one of the amendments to the to the 1968 National Firearm Act, by adding the additional requirement that one needed to be lawfully in possession of the firearm being registered in the owners name.

You do realize the criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? Right? Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

That is more sophistry you continue to put out! It is not that felons "...do not have to register their illegal guns..." but that they cannot lawfully possess or lawfully register their unlawfully possessed firearm. You keep spreading this nonsense re: your very flawed interpretation of Haynes v. U.S. but you really don't know what you're talking about and then throw in the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV on top of that mess.

Good grief, edify yourself instead of spreading that outlandish underground propaganda claptrap. You are in error, wrong, incorrect, repeating and a lie insofar as your interpretation of Haynes v. U.S. and the alleged ramifications are concerned.

 

[2aguy]

First.... Mother Jone uses the FBI definition of a Mass Public Shooting which is different from other crime related shootings, such as family murder, terrorism or gang violence.

That is blatantly FALSE! As I previously pointed out, Mother Jones used 5 separate and individual criteria to compile their list. You referred to ONLY ONE of those which was used as the measure for inclusion on their list. You mischaracterization implies it was the sole factor of those considered for the compilation of their list, which is FALSE as well as duplicitous.

I provided you with the link to the list of the 5 criteria used by Mother Jones to make a meaningful comparison between a single mass shooting from each list in my post #24. The very obvious purpose was to show the gross disparity between two different shooting, one classified as a mass shooting and the other classified as not a mass shooting in terms of the general human impact to PEOPLE and, in turn, to society at large!

You ignored all of that EXCEPT the link that I provided, which you wove into another off topic bit of incoherency. You proudly cited that link three time in your post #25 and completely ignored the list of the 5 criteria used to compile the Mother Jones list you used, but here it is again outside of a Quote Box;

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~



The credibility of your "arguments" is non-existant!

And here you go, showing you don't understand the issue ...

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination.

That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

So....genius...as you fail to realize...the only people who are subject to criminal punishment for failing to register their guns are law abiding citizens, and that point is completely lost on you since the point of registering guns, according to you guys, is to help solve crimes......

I'll make this as brief as possible for those with limited attention spans and cognitive abilities.

1. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored can not lawfully possess a firearm, period.
2. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored can not lawfully possess a firearm and therefore can not lawfully register their unlawfully possessed firearm.
3. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored who can not lawfully possess a firearm would not be in lawful possession of a firearm, and would most likely be reported, arrested for that crime of unlawful possession of a firearm and the weapon confiscated.

Haynes v. U. S. was the driver that erased that loophole with one of the amendments to the to the 1968 National Firearm Act, by adding the additional requirement that one needed to be lawfully in possession of the firearm being registered in the owners name.

You do realize the criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? Right? Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

That is more sophistry you continue to put out! It is not that felons "...do not have to register their illegal guns..." but that they cannot lawfully possess or lawfully register their unlawfully possessed firearm. You keep spreading this nonsense re: your very flawed interpretation of Haynes v. U.S. but you really don't know what you're talking about and then throw in the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV on top of that mess.

Good grief, edify yourself instead of spreading that outlandish underground propaganda claptrap. You are in error, wrong, incorrect, repeating and a lie insofar as your interpretation of Haynes v. U.S. and the alleged ramifications are concerned.

Mother Jones uses the criteria of the FBI, you don't.... you want to use whatever you want to inflate the numbers from actual mass public shootings.....you are lying.

Haynes will not allow criminals caught with illegal guns to be prosecuted for not registering those guns..... law abiding citizens who do not register their guns will be prosecuted for not registering their guns....that is the issue.

You think you are clever because you show that a criminal arrested with an illegal gun will still be arrested for the illegal gun......and that isn't the point.

As Haynes states and you actually show, they will not be charged for not registering their illegal guns, that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination.

Law abiding gun owners, who can legally possess the gun, will be arrested, charged and convicted if they do not register their legal gun.

That is the issue. Registration targets law abiding gun owners....so again, it does not help stop or solve crimes.

 

[2aguy]

First.... Mother Jone uses the FBI definition of a Mass Public Shooting which is different from other crime related shootings, such as family murder, terrorism or gang violence.

That is blatantly FALSE! As I previously pointed out, Mother Jones used 5 separate and individual criteria to compile their list. You referred to ONLY ONE of those which was used as the measure for inclusion on their list. You mischaracterization implies it was the sole factor of those considered for the compilation of their list, which is FALSE as well as duplicitous.

I provided you with the link to the list of the 5 criteria used by Mother Jones to make a meaningful comparison between a single mass shooting from each list in my post #24. The very obvious purpose was to show the gross disparity between two different shooting, one classified as a mass shooting and the other classified as not a mass shooting in terms of the general human impact to PEOPLE and, in turn, to society at large!

You ignored all of that EXCEPT the link that I provided, which you wove into another off topic bit of incoherency. You proudly cited that link three time in your post #25 and completely ignored the list of the 5 criteria used to compile the Mother Jones list you used, but here it is again outside of a Quote Box;

Here is a description of the criteria we use:

1. The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killeror a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three.)

2. The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

3. The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).

4. Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.

5. We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
~~ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America ~~



The credibility of your "arguments" is non-existant!

And here you go, showing you don't understand the issue ...

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination.

That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

So....genius...as you fail to realize...the only people who are subject to criminal punishment for failing to register their guns are law abiding citizens, and that point is completely lost on you since the point of registering guns, according to you guys, is to help solve crimes......

I'll make this as brief as possible for those with limited attention spans and cognitive abilities.

1. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored can not lawfully possess a firearm, period.
2. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored can not lawfully possess a firearm and therefore can not lawfully register their unlawfully possessed firearm.
3. Convicted felons without their conviction set-aside or expunged, or have been pardoned or have had their civil rights restored who can not lawfully possess a firearm would not be in lawful possession of a firearm, and would most likely be reported, arrested for that crime of unlawful possession of a firearm and the weapon confiscated.

Haynes v. U. S. was the driver that erased that loophole with one of the amendments to the to the 1968 National Firearm Act, by adding the additional requirement that one needed to be lawfully in possession of the firearm being registered in the owners name.

You do realize the criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? Right? Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

That is more sophistry you continue to put out! It is not that felons "...do not have to register their illegal guns..." but that they cannot lawfully possess or lawfully register their unlawfully possessed firearm. You keep spreading this nonsense re: your very flawed interpretation of Haynes v. U.S. but you really don't know what you're talking about and then throw in the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV on top of that mess.

Good grief, edify yourself instead of spreading that outlandish underground propaganda claptrap. You are in error, wrong, incorrect, repeating and a lie insofar as your interpretation of Haynes v. U.S. and the alleged ramifications are concerned.

The general human impact... your way of lying about the number of mass shootings we have. I bet there are people in California who are upset by mass shootings in Florida, so now we have to add that to the impact of the mass shooting, and include them as victims....

Right?

You have to mix up a gang banger shooting up a party over a dice game and killing 3 people with the individual who walks into a public space and shoots 3 strangers....they are different types of shootings and you are lying by trying to mix them up. You know that the average American, when they here mass public shooting, thinks of the lone gunman targeting people in a public place......they do not think the gang banger killing other gang bangers in a dice game.


But nice try.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Mother Jones uses the criteria of the FBI, you don't.... you want to use whatever you want to inflate the numbers from actual mass public shootings.....you are lying.

That is an astoundingly absurd comment, void of all validity!

Haynes will not allow criminals caught with illegal guns to be prosecuted for not registering those guns.

That is just false on its face! All Haynes v. US was based sound Constitutional principles. § 5841 and § 5851 of the 1934 National Firearms Act required ALL automatic weapons be registered. Haynes was convicted felon without his Constitutional rights to possess firearms, but he did have an automatic weapon. He was arrested and charged for failure to register his automatic firearm. His trial reached SCOTUS and the decision reached was the basis in which the 1934 Act was written. The prosecution had earlier dropped another charge of unlawful possession of the weapon so by the time it reached the High Court only the failure to register charge remained.

Cutting to the chase, because he was REQUIRED to register the firearm per the 1934 Act which included EVERYONE simply in possession, which set up the Constitutional conflict. To register the firearm he had to incriminate himself and divulge he was a convicted felon with a firearm OR face a charge of perjury and unlawful possession of a firearm or perhaps both. The final decision was this set up the situation of self-incrimination if he followed the law, the Constitutional conflict between differences in statuary law and the Constitution.

That Constitutional conundrum was fixed the same year of the decision and the 1934 Act was amended by Congress changing the registration requirements to apply to ONLY lawfully possessed weapons. Your claim, "Haynes will not allow criminals caught with illegal guns to be prosecuted for not registering those guns" is false, wrong and in error, holding no truth whatsoever! Therefore, your Amendment XIV claim is equally as the Haynes sophistry as you have fouled its anchor in the law.

You think you are clever because you show that a criminal arrested with an illegal gun will still be arrested for the illegal gun......and that isn't the point.

That makes absolutely no sense to a person from this planet and era, but you're correct that that isn't the point...and a dead clock is right 14 times per week.

As Haynes states and you actually show, they will not be charged for not registering their illegal guns, that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination.

Your assertions are wrong, in error and untrue! There is no legal basis for any person in unlawful possession of a firearm to consider registration of the weapon nor has there been for the last 50 years since the 1934 Act was amended in 1968! You're tilting at windmills!

Law abiding gun owners, who can legally possess the gun, will be arrested, charged and convicted if they do not register their legal gun.

Registration of ALL legal firearms is now mandatory you claim? Even if that bloated exaggeration were true, so what? If you weren't law abiding that would be a concern for those who are so concerned about access to weaponry.

That is the issue. Registration targets law abiding gun owners....so again, it does not help stop or solve crimes.

Tissue?