It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[whitehall]

How about this one...."It was done to the Japanese between 1942 and 1945 , why can't it be done to Conservatives between 2020 and 2025"? Anything is possible if the clown car stops at the White House

 

[rightwinger]

And then you mock Chicago for its gun deaths

You do know it was a law for over 10 years, right, before it was ruled unconstitutional.


It took a long time before someone challenged it and made its way to the supreme court.


Edit: Chicago gun ban started in 1982 and ended 2008... over 25 years before it was ruled unconstitutional



.

Unfortunately, Chicago is miles away from asshole red state Indiana which allows unrestricted access to guns

Thank god for the NRA

No...dumb ass.....Houston has gun stores on every corner, you can easily openly carry a gun and carry it concealed, and it borders the narco state of Mexico....chicago has a higher gun murder rate........Houston criminals don't have to go out of state, you doofus, but they kill fewer people than Chicago criminals...

The reason Chicago has gun crime is the democrat judges keep letting every violent, repeat gun offender out of jail on bond, often with no money required, and out of prison with short prison sentences...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I hope you are not bragging about Texas’ lack of gun crimes

Firearm violence mostly happens in progressive controlled urban America, With extremely strict gun control laws. Fact

Happens with gun owners

We need fewer of them

 

[Rustic]

You do know it was a law for over 10 years, right, before it was ruled unconstitutional.


It took a long time before someone challenged it and made its way to the supreme court.


Edit: Chicago gun ban started in 1982 and ended 2008... over 25 years before it was ruled unconstitutional



.

Unfortunately, Chicago is miles away from asshole red state Indiana which allows unrestricted access to guns

Thank god for the NRA

No...dumb ass.....Houston has gun stores on every corner, you can easily openly carry a gun and carry it concealed, and it borders the narco state of Mexico....chicago has a higher gun murder rate........Houston criminals don't have to go out of state, you doofus, but they kill fewer people than Chicago criminals...

The reason Chicago has gun crime is the democrat judges keep letting every violent, repeat gun offender out of jail on bond, often with no money required, and out of prison with short prison sentences...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I hope you are not bragging about Texas’ lack of gun crimes

Firearm violence mostly happens in progressive controlled urban America, With extremely strict gun control laws. Fact

Happens with gun owners

We need fewer of them

Lol
Na, not really
The vast majority of firearms are owned legally, and in rural America. There is no Significant firearm violence in rural America. Fact

Execute violent repeat offenders... problem solved

 

[M14 Shooter]

A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment....

Died more than 10 years ago.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[M14 Shooter]

to keep and bear arms is a general statement saying we can defend ourselves as a country against foreigners not that you have a right to unregulated ownership

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

There is no sound argument for the registration of any weapon, as the state has no demonstrable need to know the owner of each of the 360+ million weapons in the US.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

So are we going to repeat the war between the states, except the basis would be private individuals against the strength of the Federal Government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder when you will post something other than talking points you don't understand have no hope of defending.
.

You can't answer Look it up warrior , and once more an automatic weapon in the hands of idiots is a crime Back round checks are very necessary

Moron....... automatic weapons are in the hands of a tiny number of collectors....none of our mass public shootings has been done with automatic weapons, and our criminals do not use them for crime......what about this issue is so hard for you to understand?

None of our mass public shootings you say??

Cite one, just one, mass shooting perpetrated with an automatic weapon.

So.....since automatic weapons weren't used....

Thank you for agreeing that no mass shooting was perpetrated with automatic weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

to keep and bear arms is a general statement saying we can defend ourselves as a country against foreigners not that you have a right to unregulated ownership

The Constitution is quite clear, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Considering that it was written soon after the people had fought a war to free themselves from England, it is more likely the right to bear arms was to defend themselves against a too strong federal government than against foreigners.

All the more reason to register automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

Plan for confiscation, sure.
But that's why we have the 2A

 

[SaxxyBlues]

A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment....

Died more than 10 years ago.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Who are you expecting that you need semi-automatic and automatic weapons in your home? Registering the weapon gives law enforcement a leg up when unstable individuals have these weapons. You could run the information against the NCIC and try and weed out individuals that fit a certain criteria.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Thank you for agreeing that no mass shooting was perpetrated with automatic weapons.

Wouldn't matter if it was in terms of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

No matter how many mass shootings the left Orchestrates, while a tragedy indeed for the families involved, bears no weight against the absolute need to keep the 2nd Amendment as protected as free speech.

Mass shootings is not a valid reason to revoke Constitutional rights, especially those that help guarantee personal freedom.
Communists and Tyrants will argue this until blue in the face.

An UNarmed society is a tyrants Utopia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is auto ownership dying out?

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable.

Unless that un-affordability is artificial and created by the government, of course.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Who are you expecting that you need semi-automatic and automatic weapons in your home? Registering the weapon gives law enforcement a leg up when unstable individuals have these weapons. You could run the information against the NCIC and try and weed out individuals that fit a certain criteria.

Another that knows nothing.
The 2nd Amendment is about National Safety....not personal safety.
while there may have been rulings asserting those additional rights/benefits, the Original version of the 2nd Amendment was all about giving common people the means to deter or stop leftist tyrants from oppressing small innocent children.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment....

Died more than 10 years ago.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Who are you expecting that you need semi-automatic and automatic weapons in your home?

What's that? You agree the collective right argument is dead? Good.

Look at you, thinking the exercise of my rights can be limited by not meeting your subjective and unsupportable notion of "need".

Registering the weapon gives law enforcement a leg up when unstable individuals have these weapons. You could run the information against the NCIC and try and weed out individuals that fit a certain criteria.

And yet, no law enforcement agency does this.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

One of the silliest propositions put forth by the NRA and gun enthusiast is putting more people on streets with guns will reduce gun violence. The United States Research Counsel 16 member panel addressed right to carry laws and it's effect on crime. Despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime. What they did find was confirmation of number of other studies that shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns on the street and violent crime. The proposal to put more guns on streets is a deflection from the real problem, too many guns in hands of public.

WRONG
Switzerland has a gun ownership rate and weapons ownership comparable to the US per capita.
But they have almost no mass shootings.

WHY?

THEY LACK LEFTIST POLICIES. THE REAL PROBLEM IS INSANE LEFTISTS.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO RESOLVE YOUR PERCEIVED GUN PROBLEM IN AMERICA, YOU WOULD TOMORROW RENOUNCE LEFTIST POLICIES. ANYTHING LESS IS A DISPLAY OF YOUR ABJECT IGNORANCE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE

 

[2aguy]

You haven't presented any reason to register them.

To give the Federal Government numbers so it can plan appropriately.

Yes...you are a fascist...we get it.......just like fascists all over the world you realize it is hard to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back...

What you don't trust Trump and his government?

I don't put my trust in any government.......the Germans trusted their government, as did the countries of Europe....12 million innocent dead men, women and children is a lesson a wise individual only needs to learn once....

So your thinking the 7,000,000 gun owners can stand down the federal government?

A bunch of goat herders have fought us into leaving Afghanistan.....

 

[2aguy]

So you would never take the oath?

, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Already did...

 

[2aguy]

By Dennis A. Henigan

The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.

First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.

Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.

Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."

The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.

Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.

Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.

There is too much at stake to be silent.

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco
There is one for firearms

One of the silliest propositions put forth by the NRA and gun enthusiast is putting more people on streets with guns will reduce gun violence. The United States Research Counsel 16 member panel addressed right to carry laws and it's effect on crime. Despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime. What they did find was confirmation of number of other studies that shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns on the street and violent crime. The proposal to put more guns on streets is a deflection from the real problem, too many guns in hands of public.

Moron...it already happened over the last 26 years........

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

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

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

 

[2aguy]

By Dennis A. Henigan

The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.

First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.

Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.

Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."

The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.

Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.

Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.

There is too much at stake to be silent.

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco
There is one for firearms

One of the silliest propositions put forth by the NRA and gun enthusiast is putting more people on streets with guns will reduce gun violence. The United States Research Counsel 16 member panel addressed right to carry laws and it's effect on crime. Despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime. What they did find was confirmation of number of other studies that shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns on the street and violent crime. The proposal to put more guns on streets is a deflection from the real problem, too many guns in hands of public.

And now for actual research....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

 

[2aguy]

Is auto ownership dying out?

So you have no problem requiring safety measures on guns

You the MAN

If mandatory safety measure raised the price of guns too much for some people to be able to buy them, they would violate the seconon amendment, but that's really what you want to do, right?

Second says nothing about price

But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable. When the 2nd amendment was written guns were too expensive for a large segment of the population. The cost of a gun in today's dollars would be nearly a thousand dollars. Guns (muskets) were so expensive, inaccurate and slow loading, a knife or hatchet was the weapon of choice for self protection.

Citizens armed with muskets in a militia firing in volleys at a charging force were considered and effective means of using untrained citizens against trained solders. Fear of those loyal to the crown resulted in talk of restricting access to guns. Congress created the 2nd amendment to make sure that citizens would have access to firearms so they would be able serve in the militia. Had Washington had an army trained so they could go toe to toe with the British with fixed bayonet, there probably have been no militia and no 2nd amendment.

It is called the 2nd Amendment, and the 14th Amendment, the equal protection clause...moron.

 

[2aguy]

A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment....

Died more than 10 years ago.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Who are you expecting that you need semi-automatic and automatic weapons in your home? Registering the weapon gives law enforcement a leg up when unstable individuals have these weapons. You could run the information against the NCIC and try and weed out individuals that fit a certain criteria.

Yeah....nothing you posted about gun registration is true, factual or based in reality..how do I know? Canada.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
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.


-----

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.